Disposed

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27385/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash FIR disclosing cognizable offence but directed police compliance with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if apprehended arrest relates to offences carrying sentence up to seven years, provided investigation is incomplete.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR refused; direction for police compliance with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest effected for offences with sentence under seven years.

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey 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. - 27385 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Mohan Tiwari 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

Petitioner has approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR dated 17.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No.180 of 2018, under sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, PS Barhaj, District Deoria.

¶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 Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 Sazia

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey 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

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