Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33499/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash an FIR registered under Section 354-D I.P.C. and Section 66-A I.T. Act as it discloses a cognizable offence. However, the Court directed police to arrest petitioners in compliance with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. if the offence does not carry a sentence exceeding seven years.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; conditional direction to police to comply with arrest provisions under Cr.P.C. if sentence is under seven years.

Mukesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33499 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukesh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey 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. 870 of 2018, under Section 354-D I.P.C. and Section 66-A of I.T. Act, registered at P.S. Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras.

¶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 Section 354-D I.P.C. and Section 66-A of I.T. 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 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh and 3 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

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

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others