By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the arrest of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in connection with the re-investigation of a criminal case at the police station – Ganj of Rampur district alleging that the house of the informant was demolished at the instance of the then minister of UP Azam Khan in 2006. The FIR was lodged on July 10, 2007.
Hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Azam Khan, a division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra directed the state government as well as the counsel for the informant to file a counter affidavit (reply) in this case. T
In its order, the court has fixed May 5, 2025, for the next hearing of the case.
In the present case, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner – Azam Khan alleging mischief, criminal trespass, common intention and extortion at police station – Ganj of Rampur district alleging that house of first informant was demolished at the alleged intention of the then minister Azam Khan with malafide intention on his part.
The police investigated the case and submitted final report on December 7, 2007 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said final report, notices were issued to the first informant vide order dated December 7, 2007 and thereafter, the matter remained pending and no orders were passed on the final report.
Subsequently, the first informant Afsar Khan passed away on October 18, 2017 and the information of which was received to the court on January 16, 2023, consequent to which, last opportunity was given for filing objections.
Thereafter, one Zulfiqar Khan, son of the first informant, Afsar Khan, filed a protest petition on December 7, 2024. On the said protest petition, after hearing the petitioner Zulfiqar Khan, an order for further investigation was passed by the court on January 21, 2025.
During the course of hearing , the counsel for petitioner Imran Ullah submitted that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner, as such, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. He submitted that the case has been re-opened after a period of eighteen years.
After hearing both sides, the court, in its order dated April, said that the matter requires consideration and passed the above directives.
