Petitioners challenged the FIR citing risk of arrest violating Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Court refused to quash the FIR but directed police to comply with statutory arrest procedures if executed.
Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction to comply with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A Cr.P.C. if arrest is effected.
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. - 37267 of 2018
Petitioner :- Hari Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Pratap Singh 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 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.479 of 2018, under Sections 323,504,506,379 IPC, P.S. Koraon, District Allahabad.
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.
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.
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 :- 19.12.2018
M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the FIR dated 22.10.2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC.
Whether the arrest of the petitioners would be in breach of Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A Cr.P.C. under Arnesh Kumar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of BiharReferred¶10
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Lal
Another
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
