Disposed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33566/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the FIR as it disclosed a cognizable offence. However, directing that if arrest is sought while the alleged sentence is seven years or less, police must strictly comply with mandatory arrest restrictions under Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. before detaining the petitioner. This protection lapses upon filing of the FIR report.

What did the court decide?

Direct that if arrest is to be effected and sentence is within seven years, police must comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C.; benefits lapse if investigation report filed.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33566 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved 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 A.G.A. 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 28.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0395 of 2018 under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Sadar Bazar, DistrictShahjahanpur.

¶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 under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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. Order Date :- 22.11.2018 C. MANI

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Gupta 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

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