Disposed

Nitin Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021CRLP/11648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and prohibition of arrest. The court applied the guidelines framed in a previous judgment (Vimal Kumar case) regarding offences punishable with seven years or less imprisonment, ordering the petition disposed of in the same terms.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar case).

Nitin Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11648 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nitin Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brij Kumar Saroj,Sudhir Bharti

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Brij Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for respondent and learned A.G.A.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 02.10.2021 in Case Crime no.124/2021 under Section 323, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 amended in the year 2015, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶6

The submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41A Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.

¶7

We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

¶8

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of judgement dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others).

¶9

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 A. Pandey

Nitin Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mangal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Zahid Hussain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Annu Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahavir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aasma Bee Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Sheela Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others