Partly allowed

Mahtab Beg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019CRLP/24287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR. The Court refused to quash the FIR but directed that if arrest is necessary, it must comply with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction issued to police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. for any future arrest.

Mahtab Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24287 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahtab Beg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Shukla,Pratyush Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suman Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dr. S.K. Yadav on behalf of the respondent no.3 and learned A.GA. for the State.

¶5

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 29.07.2019 lodged at Case Crime No. 0132 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bekan Ganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against the unknown persons by respondent no.3, offence under Section 436 I.P.C. has been deleted and the police report indicates that the petitioner is wanted in offences under Section 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. If the offences 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 petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶8

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the F.I.R., hence the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. 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 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Ashok Gupta

Mahtab Beg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahtab Beg 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

Shameem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumit Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Moizuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Sarmukh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others