Dismissed

Amit Bhojwal @ Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2021CRLP/2771/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions due to lack of cogent reasons. While the court noted arrest had not yet occurred and directed police compliance with Cr.P.C. sections regarding arrest procedure if enforced, it clarified that the order would not apply once a police report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of FIR; directed police to comply with Cr.P.C. arrest provisions if arrest is made; order ceases to have effect if investigation completes and report is filed.

Amit Bhojwal @ Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2771 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amit Bhojwal @ Amit Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Sri Jitendra Singh and Sri Ashish Srivastava, Advocates, have jointly filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3, let it be taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 11.3.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 47 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Deoriya Kalan District- Pilibhit with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the said F.I.R.

¶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. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶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 petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Gss

Amit Bhojwal @ Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Bhojwal @ Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anta Singhal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Wakil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Natthu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Danish @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others