Petitioners invoked jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R. The court refused the quashing prayer but directed police to adhere to arrest provisions under Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C.
Prayer for quashing refused; Direction to police to comply with arrest provisions before effectuating arrest (subject to chargesheet not being filed).
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. - 24890 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shivpoojan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.GA. 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 21.06.2019 lodged at Case Crime No. 158 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lalauli, District Fatehpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no.3 has filed the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners with vague and false allegations. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely and maliciously implicated in the present case. 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 F.I.R., hence the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. 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 :- 7.12.2019 Ashok Gupta
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. should be quashed at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharExplained¶11
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivpoojan And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Naheed Ara Moonis
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
