Single judge dismissed petition seeking quashing of FIR and restriction on arrest. Court refused quash plaint but directed police comply with Cr.P.C. provisions regarding arrest warrants to prevent arbitrary arrest.
Refused to quash FIR. Directed police to comply with arrest provisions. Benefit lost if investigation completed.
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. - 6725 of 2020 Petitioner :- Bhagmal Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra 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, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash First Information Report (in short “FIR”) dated 15.06.2020 registered as Case Crime No.101 of 2020, under Sections-506, 504, 354 IPC and under Section 3 (1)(Da) and 3 (1) (Gha) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Mandawar, District-Bijnor.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that 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 its entirety and charges are found proved, the petitioner cannot be awarded sentence for a period more than 7 years. As such, it is further contended that arrest of the petitioner should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
Per contra, learned AGA contended that the allegations made in the FIR cannot be aborted at this stage. Petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
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, prayer for quashing the FIR 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 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 petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
With aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Manish Himwan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharApplied¶11
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagmal
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
