Disposed

Kaushalendra Mishra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2018CRLP/16053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court refused to quash an FIR as it disclosed a cognizable offence. However, the Court directed that if arrest is eventually made before the filing of a charge-sheet, police must comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. since the maximum sentence is under seven years. This direction ceases to operate once a Section 173(2) report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. if arrest occurs before charge-sheet filing; refused quashing of FIR; matter disposed of finally.

Kaushalendra Mishra and 4 Others Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16053 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kaushalendra Mishra And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajkishore Singh,Sanjay Srivastava 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 A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.05.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 48 of 2018 under Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379/411 of I.P.C., 1860, and 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.- Mataundh, District- Banda.

¶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 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 petitioner is under Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379/411 of I.P.C., 1860, and 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 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 petitioners is to be effectuated and the offence, in which they are 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

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

¶13

Order Date :- 20.6.2018/KS

Kaushalendra Mishra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalendra Mishra and 4 Others 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

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

Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sageer @ Kallan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others