Suleman Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was disposed of with observations regarding the disputed questions of fact. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner had produced a GST invoice showing the purchase of 'reta' and a learners license from the transport department, which contradicted the FIR's allegation of illegal mining. The Court stated that these facts would be considered by the lower court where the petitioner might apply for bail. The Court did not quash the FIR or grant the relief of preventing arrest directly but left the consideration of the petitioner's evidence to the appropriate forum for bail proceedings. No specific sections of the GST Act were discussed in detail, but the GST invoice was a key piece of evidence presented by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Suleman Khan, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR registered on May 26, 2022, at Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. The FIR was lodged under Sections 379, 411 IPC, and provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub Mineral (Concession) Manual, 1963, and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and a direction to prevent his arrest. The petitioner contended that he was involved in legal mining and had purchased 'reta' (minor mineral) as evidenced by a GST invoice and a learners license from the transport department. The Court noted that the FIR alleged illegal mining, creating disputed questions of fact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report dated 26.05.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 514 of 2022 under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 3/57/7 Uttar Pradesh Sub Mineral (Concession) Manual, 1963 and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the FIR was wrongly lodged as he was engaged in legal mining activities. He presented a GST invoice indicating the purchase of 'reta' and a learners license from the transport department as proof of his legitimate business. Respondent's contention: The State contended that the FIR alleged illegal mining, creating disputed questions of fact. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent beyond the implication of the FIR's allegations.