AMU Student Booked Over Anti-CAA Protests Moves Allahabad High Court Challenging Cognizance Order
A 25-year-old student of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) who is facing a 2020 FIR on the allegations of raising slogans during the CAA-NRC protests and thereby disobeying public servant's order has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the cognizance order, the chargesheet, and the entire case proceedings. The petitioner, Misbah Qaiser, a B.Arch. Student at the...
A 25-year-old student of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) who is facing a 2020 FIR on the allegations of raising slogans during the CAA-NRC protests and thereby disobeying public servant's order has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the cognizance order, the chargesheet, and the entire case proceedings.
The petitioner, Misbah Qaiser, a B.Arch. Student at the university had been booked under Section 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint) IPC on the allegations of blocking the road which hindered the arrival of common public on the road, as well as the ambulances.
The matter will be heard by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori on Tuesday (March 18).
In his plea, filed through Advocates Ali Bin Saif and Kaif Hassan, Qaiser has argued that the two sections imposed against him by the Investigating Officer (IO) are not supported by any concrete evidence or legal basis.
Furthermore, he contends that the cognizance order is flawed in law, as the cognizance of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was taken based on a written complaint from a police official.
The plea points out that according to Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), cognizance of offenses punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC can only be taken upon the written complaint of the concerned public servant or another public servant to whom they are administratively subordinate. This, however, is not the case in the present matter.
His plea further submits that the order under section 144 of CrPC that he is said to have disobeyed was never shown to him, placed/stuck at the place of the incident, or served in any manner as prescribed by section 134 of CrPC.
“…in the FIR there is no mentioning of the details of order under section 144 of Cr.P.C which was said to be in forced as per the FIR…from the perusal of the FIR it clearly shows that order under section 144 of CrPC was not shown as to make aware the people that there is an order under section 144 of CrPC in the force,” the plea adds.