Disposed

Vijay @ Panju v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2018CRLP/15404/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR and restrain arrest in a Section 379, 411 IPC case. Court refused to quash the FIR as it disclosed a cognizable offence. Court directed police to comply with Cr.P.C. arrest provisions regarding offences with sentences under seven years.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash FIR; directed police to comply with Sec. 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is made for an offence not exceeding seven years.

Vijay @ Panju Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15404 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay @ Panju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Farid Ahmed 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 AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 30.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 143 of 2018, Under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C, P.S.- G.R.P. Moradabad, District- Moradabad.

¶7

This Court has the occasion to peruse the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. in question does disclose a cognizable offence. In view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the F.I.R. 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 Sections 379, 411 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

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.6.2018 A. Tripathi

Vijay @ Panju v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Panju v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Vinmati Vs State of U.P.

Manik Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Sumit Agrawal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Duliya @ Duniya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohd Ashif and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others