Partly allowed

Jag Narain and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27335/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Key to quash F.I.R. as it discloses a cognizable offence. Directed police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is ordered and sentence does not exceed seven years. Order void if FIR submitted to Magistrate after compliance.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. not quashed; Directive issued for police compliance with Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A if arrest is ordered and sentence does not exceed seven years, subject to no final police report.

Jag Narain and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27335 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jag Narain And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Sandeep Kumar 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 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 17.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 170 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi.

¶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 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 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 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 :- 1.10.2018 KS

Jag Narain and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Narain and 12 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

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