Disposed

Naresh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the FIR due to lack of cogent reasons. It declined to prohibit arrest but directed police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41A Cr.P.C. guidelines from Arnesh Kumar before effectuating the arrest of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A Cr.P.C. if arrest is effected; prayer for quashing of FIR refused.

Naresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37227 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Naresh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 23.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.188 of 2018, under Sections 147,353 IPC and Section 26,41,42 Indian Forest Act and Section 9,51 Wild Life Protection Act, P.S. Mandawali, District Bijnor.

¶7

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.

¶8

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the FIR, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶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 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 .

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 M. Tariq

Naresh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh and 2 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Safayddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others