Partly allowed

Wakil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2021CRLP/2840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petition for quashing the FIR under the Electricity Act. While refusing quashing due to lack of cogent reasons, the Court directed police to adhere to provisions under Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is made, noting that benefits would cease upon filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the FIR was refused. A direction was issued for police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. during arrest, if made.

Wakil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2840 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Wakil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.12.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 4165 of 2020, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, Police Station- Anti Power Theft, District- Muzaffernagar, with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said F.I.R.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

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.

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.4.2021 aks

Wakil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wakil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Moin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Dilip Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others