Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2018CRLP/16108/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC, alleging limited sentence implications. The court rejected the quashing plea as the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence but directed police compliance with CrPC provisions if arrest is made prior to the filing of the final police report.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of FIR; Directed police compliance with CrPC arrest provisions if arrest issued before police report filing.

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16108 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh 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.

¶6

Petitioners have approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 107 of 2018 , under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act & Section 420 I.P.C. , registered at P.S. Patwai , DistrictRampur.

¶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 Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act & Section 420 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 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 :- 20.6.2018 SA

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and Another 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

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

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

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