Dismissed

Rizwanuddin @Manu v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLP/12849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 379 IPC and directions regarding arrest procedures. The Court refused to quash the FIR as it disclosed a cognizable offence but directed the police to comply with arrest provisions if the potential sentence is seven years or less, with benefits ceasing upon filing of the final police report.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR refused. Directed police to arrest in compliance with S. 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if sentence is life or 7 years or less.

Rizwanuddin @Manu Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12849 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rizwanuddin @Manu Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Randhir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 117 of 2018, under Section 379 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Chhajlait, District Moradabad.

¶7

This Court has the occasion to peruse the FIR and the FIR in question does discloses a cognizable offence, in view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the FIR, as has been prayed on behalf of petitioner, as such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the offence in question as has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is under Section 379 I.P.C. and the said offence even if the charges are found to be proved sentence of more than 7 years can not be awarded and, in view of this, mechanically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶9

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioner that he would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶10

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated and the offence, in which he is wanted, will not entail sentence of more than 7 years then in that event concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶12

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 SA

Rizwanuddin @Manu v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwanuddin @Manu v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balram Vs State of U.P.

Surjan and Others Vs State of U.P.

Fulari and Another Vs State of U P and Another

Mahabir Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others