The Court refused to quash the First Information Report. However, it directed the police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A of Cr.P.C. during the petitioner's arrest, citing Arnesh Kumar, unless investigation is complete.
FIR quashing refused; directive for police to follow arrest guidelines under Cr.P.C.
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. - 6567 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jai Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh 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 11.4.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0245 of 2020, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, 1955, police station Rasulabad, District Rama Bai Nagar.
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.
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.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the first information report. 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. in the light of the dictum 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 :- 6.7.2020 Shahnawaz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the First Information Report registered under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, 1955.
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
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Narayan
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
