Disposed

Duryodhan @ Jodhan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019CRLP/9760/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC and POCSO Act due to apprehension of arrest. The court refused to quash the FIR but directed police to adhere to arrest safeguards under CrPC and Arnesh Kumar principles.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; directive given for police to comply with CrPC Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A during arrest if necessary.

Duryodhan @ Jodhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9760 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Duryodhan @ Jodhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard S ri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

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 26.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 0077 of 2019, under Section 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 8 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Shamshabad, DistrictFurrukhabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 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.

¶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 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. 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 :- 15.4.2019 Rahul.

Duryodhan @ Jodhan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duryodhan @ Jodhan 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

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Jadaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramsurat @ Rampratap Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others