The Court rejected the petition to quash the FIR and suppress arrest apprehension. It directed police to comply with arrest procedures under Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A during the investigation phase.
Writ petition disposed; police directed to comply with Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A during investigation.
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. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11181 of 2019
Petitioner :- Prince Yadav And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Bhahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Indra Bhahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. 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 F.I.R. dated 14.04.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 38 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354(Kha) I.P.C., Police Station- Koirana, District- Bhadohi.
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.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
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 41-A 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 petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Rahul.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. in criminal cases involving potential 7-year sentences should be quashed and arrest prohibited.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharFollowed¶11
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prince Yadav
5 Others
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Naheed Ara Moonis
Anil Kumar-IX
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
