ANJUM & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME. DEPTT. & OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-133
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 14,2018

Anjum And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R. No.0214 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 394, 323, 452, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanepur, District Gonda.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui. We have also heard learned counsel for caveator Mr. Rajiva Dubey, Advocate. We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.
(3.) Apparently, there is an allegation of fourteen persons causing injuries on the side of the complainant after breaking into their house. Considering the number of persons accused of causing injuries and the evident fact that only one person received injuries, the Court wanted to refer to the injury report. Injury report had been produced by learned counsel for the caveator in Court in which handwriting was readable at all. Under the circumstances, order dated 28.8.2018 had to be passed, which is in the following terms : "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R. No.214 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 394, 323, 452, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanepur, District Gonda. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent State. Shri Rajiva Dubey, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4. Power of Attorney filed by him today in court, is taken on record. Let name of Shri Rajiva Dubey, Advocate be printed in the cause list as counsel for the respondent. 3. Shri Rajiva Dubey has pointed out that medico legal examination of Siraj Khan was conducted on 19.7.2018. As many as five injuries have been found. Other than that, there are two injuries indicating complain of pain. 4. We find that the hand-writing of the doctor on the medical report is readable, at all. 5. We hereby direct the State Counsel to ensure that the doctor who authored medical report dated 19.7.2018 is produced before this court on the next date so that we can decipher the nature and seat of injuries. 6. The doctor concerned is required to get the medical report typed in duplicate for the benefit of the court. 7. List on 14.9.2018. 8. Petitioners be taken in custody unless specific credible evidence against the individual accused is found.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.