Dismissed

Mohd. Sani and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019CRLP/24888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court refused to quash the First Information Report due to lack of cogent reasons. However, it directed police to adhere to Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. guidelines regarding arrest, citing Arnesh Kumar. The order provides no long-term benefit if a report is subsequently filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction to police to comply with arrest guidelines under Cr.P.C. until report filed.

Mohd. Sani and 11 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24888 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Sani And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitionersr have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 18.10.2019 in Case Crime No.446 of 2019, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Didoli, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶7

It is submitted by 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners 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.

¶11

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 .

¶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 petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Krishna

Mohd. Sani and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sani and 11 Others 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

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Shivpoojan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarswati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others