Disposed

Sonu Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2018CRLP/15940/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence under IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act. The Court refused to quash the FIR. However, it directed that if arrest is made and the potential sentence exceeds seven years, the police must comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC. The protection expires upon filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Orders police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC if arrest is made for an offence with potential sentence over seven years and report under Section 173(2) CrPC is not yet filed.

Sonu Khan and 2 Others 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. - 15940 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sonu Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Rathor,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 62 of 2018, under Section 379 I.P.C. & Under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act registered at P.S. Mahobkanth , District- Mahoba .

¶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 petitioners, as such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the offence in question as has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is under Section 379 I.P.C. & Under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act, 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 petitioners that they 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 petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶12

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.6.2018 Asheesh/Rohit

Sonu Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Khan and 2 Others 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

Monu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avadhesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karam Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others