Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7441 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohammad Aayaz Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 0124 of 2018, under Sections 386, 506 IPC, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 on 11.03.2018 alleging that the petitioner Mohammad Aayaz and one another Raju Saini want to take control of the house respondent no.3 after breaking the lock and threat to kill him, if refuse his demand of Rs.2,00,000/- ransom.
It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit No. 69 of 2016 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amroha, in which, he had passed the order dated 07.04.2016 and directed both the parties to maintain the status-quo.
It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for only making pressure upon the petitioner, present criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent no.3.
He has further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, no credible evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie, indicating that any such incident had taken place, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out, hence, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Nadim