In a criminal writ petition, the Court directed that if the petitioner is to be arrested in the impugned case, police must comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. following the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. The petition was disposed of with this direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36328 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 2.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.268 of 2018, under Sections 419,420 IPC, P.S. Sikandarpur, District Ballia.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioner cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioner should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
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.
In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which he is wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 .
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.12.2018 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether arrest of petitioner should be effectuated in compliance with provisions of Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
Whether provisions regarding arrest scheme under Cr.P.C. should be adhered to when no violation has occurred so far.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharExplained¶9
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanhaiya
State Of U.P.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
