The High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed police to comply with Arnesh Kumar guidelines if arresting the petitioner before the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction to police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is made.
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. - 37261 of 2018
Petitioner :- Lokesh Yadav @ Monu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pandey Balkrishna 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 5.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.13 of 2018, under Sections 354-B,323,504,506,507 IPC, P.S. New Agra, District Agra.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to quash the FIR under Section 354-B IPC warrants allowance given the petitioner's apprehension of arrest.
Whether the police can effect the petitioner's arrest without complying with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharExplained¶10
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Lokesh Yadav @ Monu
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
