The Court directed police to comply with bail-arrest provisions of Cr.P.C. per Arnesh Kumar while dismissing the writ petition quashing the FIR entirely, noting no warrantless arrest occurred yet.
Direction to police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before arresting petitioners.
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. - 36546 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sadanand Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 22.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.278 of 2018, under Sections 379,411 IPC, Section 3,57,70 of U.P. Mines & Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, Section 4,21 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners 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 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.
In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioners is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which they are 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 :- 14.12.2018 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police personnel are directed to debit arrest petitioners in compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
Whether the alleged provisions under Mines and Minerals Rules and Act warrant issuance of writ.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharFollowed¶9
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Sadanand Yadav
2nd Petitioner
State Of U.P.
Moonis, Naheed Ara
Srivastava, Pradeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
