Disposed

Dilshad Husain and 6 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2021CRLP/4135/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed police to strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. if effectuating arrest is required, specifically where the offence does not entail a sentence exceeding seven years. The petitioner's apprehension of illegal arrest was addressed via this directive, contingent on investigation completion.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to deal with potential arrest strictly in compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. if the offense does not entail a sentence of more than seven years.

Dilshad Husain and 6 Others Vs State of U P and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4135 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dilshad Husain And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Tewari,Braham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 21.5.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mughalpura, District Moradabad in so far as it relates to the petitioners as also for the direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

¶7

It is contended that even if the charges relating to the alleged offence are found to be proved, sentence of more than seven years cannot be awarded and in view of this, technically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the petition.

¶9

Nothing has been indicated in the writ petition which would indicate the stage of the investigation.

¶10

We have gone through the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., which, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence and as such, we are not inclined to interfere in the F.I.R.

¶11

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and the petitioners are under an apprehension that they would be arrested in breach of the provisions as contained in Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once the statute prescribes procedure it is always expected of the executing authority that they would adhere to the same.

¶12

In case of any violation of the statutory procedure, complaint can also be made to the Magistrate concerned who may remedy

¶13

the situation.

¶14

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in the event arrest of petitioners are to be effectuated and the offence, in which they are wanted, would not entail sentence of more than 7 years then the concerned police personnel shall deal with the matter strictly in compliance of the provisions as contained in Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

It is further provided that if the investigation in the matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the benefit of this order would not be extended and the concerned court shall deal with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶16

Subject to the above, the present writ petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 14.9.2021 Brijesh

¶17

Digitally signed by SUNITA Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani AGARWAL Thakur Date: 2021.09.15 14:34:15 IST Date: 2021.09.15 14:34:34 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Dilshad Husain and 6 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad Husain and 6 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

Shrichand and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Nirmala Singh Vs State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power

Sita Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Binda Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha @ Asma Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others