https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296434 The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, finding the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court emphasized that interference with investigation or arrest is not permissible unless no cognizable offence is evident from the FIR. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as an alternative to anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to appear before the lower court for further proceedings. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jul 2021 21:45:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296434 The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, finding the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court emphasized that interference with investigation or arrest is not permissible unless no cognizable offence is evident from the FIR. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as an alternative to anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to appear before the lower court for further proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296434