Disposed

Minhaj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019CRLP/9764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an FIR and enforced restrictions preventing arbitrary arrest, citing potential unfair harassment. The court refused to quash the FIR but directed the police to strictly adhere to specific procedural sections of the Cr.P.C. regarding arrest procedures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; police directed to comply with Cr.P.C. arrest provisions if arrest becomes necessary.

Minhaj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9764 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Minhaj And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Gulam Husain,Varun Kumar Vishwakarma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Qaisar Kamal Ansari

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶7

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 1.10.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 1103 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC Police Station- Ubhaon, District- Ballia.

¶8

It is submitted by the 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 .

¶13

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.

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Ashutosh Pandey

Minhaj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minhaj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Jaggilal @ Jagdish and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Laxman Singh @ Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sugriv Ram Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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