The court refused to quash the FIR but directed police compliance with arrest provisions under CrPC Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A if the petitioner is to be arrested, noting the case has not yet been reported under Section 173.
Prayer for quash refused; direction given to police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A 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. - 26153 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shivraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 11.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 357 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 and 120-B I.P.C., police station Refinery, district Mathura.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner with the allegations that some persons pilfering the diesel oil by filling in a tanker at the instance of the petitioner and when the police came there they fled away from the spot. The petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the police on the basis of the first information report. If the offence 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 petitioner should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to quash the first information report, hence the prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.
The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioner 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.
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 he is 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. as per direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 518.
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.
The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Shahnawaz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first information report charged with theft should be quashed given the petitioner's apprehension of arrest without adherence to arrest provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherExplained¶11
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 518.
Shivraj Singh
State Of U.P.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
