Nanhe Langra @ Riyasat vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 35867 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nanhe Langra @ Riyasat vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 December, 2023

Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240299-DB
 
Reserved on 23.11.2023
 
Delivered on 19.12.2023
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18276 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Nanhe Langra @ Riyasat
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 29.10.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.0289 of 2023, under Sections 8, 21, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Fatehganj West, District-Bareilly.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been named by the main accused from whom smack is alleged to have been recovered by the Police. The co-accused has stated that this smack in his possession was purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with this matter. Smack recovered with the co-accused in any case, in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, this statement of co-accused cannot even be read as against him.

4. Under the circumstances, there is not even a shred of evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be protected. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC Page 1.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition.

6. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court in Toofan Singh has held that a conviction on the basis of a confessional statement made by an accused before a police officer cannot be sole basis of conviction. However, the question of appreciation of evidence or its efficacy is to be judged during trial.

7. At the moment, this Court is dealing with a writ petition which seeks quashing of the first information report. The Court is not required to appreciate any evidence or to enter into an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the first information report impugned will result in conviction or not. The Court is only required to examine as to whether the allegations in the first information report contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence.The allegations contained in the impugned FIR definitely contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence.

8. The first information report under the circumstances, cannot be quashed especially on the basis of this submission that have been made at the bar.

9. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.12.2023

Aditya Tripathi