Disposed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC Sections 147, 452, 324, 504, 506. While the FIR was not quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence, the Court directed police to follow CrPC Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A if the potential sentence is seven years or less, provided investigation is incomplete.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to comply with CrPC Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A if arresting petitioners for an offence with a max sentence of seven years.

Sachin and 4 Others 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. - 33493 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sachin And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,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. 388 of 2018, under Sections 147, 452, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Noorpur, District Bijnor.

¶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 147, 452, 324, 504, 506 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

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 SA

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Bahadur Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sarvesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others