Disposed

Sobaran and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018CRLP/32493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash an FIR disclosing a cognitable offence under Section 147 IPC. However, it directed the police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if effecting arrest for an offence where the potential sentence does not exceed 7 years, noting that non-compliance remains remediable before a Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR refused; direction to police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. for arrest if max sentence is under 7 years unless final report filed.

Sobaran and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32493 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sobaran And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,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 26.10.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 224 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 332, 353 I.P.C., P.S.- Indargarh, District- Kannauj.

¶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 147, 148, 332, 353 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 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

¶11

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

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

¶14

Order Date :- 14.11.2018 Abhishek

Sobaran and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobaran and 4 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

Dansih (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Suraj Mukhi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nand Lal and 4 OTHERS20 Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others