Disposed

Sukhram Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2018CRLP/15952/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the FIR as it discloses a cognizable offence. However, it directed that if the potential sentence does not exceed seven years, arrest must comply with Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A. Benefits of this direction expire upon filing the police report.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR was refused; but directed that any arrest must comply with Cr.P.C. provisions regarding non-bailable bail conditions for offences with sentences under seven years.

Sukhram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15952 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sukhram Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Srivastava 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 and perused the record.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0170 of 2018 under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at P.S. Lalganj, District Basti.

¶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 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 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. 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. It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has

¶10

been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶11

has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶12

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.6.2018 Asheesh/Rohit

Sukhram Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram Maurya 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

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