S ORDERS WPCRL No. 792 of 2026 · Uttarakhand High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Provisions considered
- Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 ss. 3, 5, 11
Judgment
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. praying for the following relief:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR Annexure No. 1 page 12 to 25, registered as case crime no. 121 of 2026 under Section 3, 5, 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District - Haridwar. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner case crime no. 121 of 2026 under Section 3, 5, 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District – Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 is ready to surrender before the court concerned, however, protection may be given to petitioner no. 1 – Rizwana.
State Counsel has no objection to it. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is 6. dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner no. 2 as he is ready to surrender before the court concerned. Since at this juncture, impugned FIR cannot be 7. quashed, therefore, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, investigation may go on, however, no coercive action shall be taken against her till the investigation is completed provided she cooperates with the investigation. 8. With the observations and directions, as above, the writ petition qua the petitioner no. 2 is finally disposed of. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.05.2026 SKS
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.