Partly allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the F.I.R. as it disclosed a cognizable offence. It directed that if the offence attracts a sentence not exceeding seven years, arrest must follow Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. The order becomes void if the police file a Section 173(2) report.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash F.I.R.; directed compliance with Cr.P.C. arrest provisions for non-emergency cases; order voidable upon filing of police report.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27324 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,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 02.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 344 of 2018 u/s 354A, 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 8 POCSO Act, P.S.- Mangalpur, District- Ramabai Nagar.

¶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 u/s 354A, 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 8 POCSO 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 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 :- 1.10.2018 KS

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Smt. Priya and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Musheer @ Musheer Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others