Disposed

Vinay Dubey @ Fajihat Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37238/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR in an IPC cheating case. The Court directed that if the petitioner is arrested, police must comply with Cr.P.C. arrest guidelines. The order becomes nullified once a police report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Order to police to comply with arrest guidelines; Benefit ends upon filing of report.

Vinay Dubey @ Fajihat Dubey Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37238 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinay Dubey @ Fajihat Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Imran Khan 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 first information report dated 1.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2018, under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first information report lodged by the respondent no. 3 with the allegations that the petitioner has obtained firearms licence by showing wrong address. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is vague and false. 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. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 41-A of the Cr.P.C. as per direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 518 .

¶10

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 petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Shahnawaz

Vinay Dubey @ Fajihat Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Dubey @ Fajihat Dubey 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

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