Partly allowed

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020CRLP/7053/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR in a cheating case but directed the police to comply with statutory provisions for arrest, specifically Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C., while relying on the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar judgment to prevent arbitrary arrest.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the FIR refused; directed police to comply with arrest provisions under S. 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. as per Arnesh Kumar judgment.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7053 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA 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 FIR dated 26.4.2020 registered as Case Crime no.353 of 2020, under Sections 408,411 & 182 IPC, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner had himself lodged an FIR against unknown person in respect of theft of Airtel Tower Battery which was registered under Section 379 IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case showing the recovery of stolen articles. Hence the police is trying to arrest the petitioner when no article whatsoever, has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner be taken in its entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioner cannot be awarded sentence of more

¶8

than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioner 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 petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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 .

¶14

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.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Bramhdev Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devang Tayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Rohan (Minor) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others