Partly allowed

Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37234/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition where the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging unnecessary harassment and apprehended arrest. Court refused quash but directed police to follow arrest procedures if arrest is executed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR refused; direction issued to police to comply with arrest provisions under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41A Cr.P.C. if arrest is to be effected.

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

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37234 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Bihari Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 24.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.280 of 2018, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

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.

¶8

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 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.

¶10

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 .

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 M. Tariq

Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar 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