SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(UK) 256

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Sannoo – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Gaurav Singh, Advocate, Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. Petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No. 641 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

3. According to the FIR, the informant deals with chickens, he purchases chickens from the farm of petitioner no.3 Omveer. On 16.09.2020, mid-night at 01:00 AM, they went to purchase chickens at the farm of petitioner no. 3 Omveer. Money was taken from the informant but chickens were not given. All the three petitioners were present at the time of incident and when the informant insisted for chickens, he were abused and petitioner no. 3 Omveer was about to assault the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the FIR is false. On the date of incident at mid-night, Police had booked the parties under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), but, subsequently this false report is lodged. Alternatively, it is argued that it is the case which is covered by the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273

5. This is the petition under Article 226 of the Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top