Aditya Chaudhary v. State of up
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court did not quash the FIR which disclosed a cognizable offence. However, it directed that if the petitioner is arrested for an offence carrying a sentence of seven years or less, police must strictly comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C.
What did the court decide?
Direction to police to comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is made for an offence punishable by not more than seven years.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5340 of 2021
Petitioner :- Aditya Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Shekhar Pal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 21.05.2021 registered as Case Crime No.44 of 2021 under Sections 323,452, 504 I.P.C. P.S.-Babri District-Shamli in so far as it relates to the petitioner as also for the direction to the opposite parties not to arrest him in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise have been arrived between the parties.
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.
Learned AGA opposed the petition.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant a direction for strict compliance with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if the petitioner is arrested for an offence punishable by less than seven years.
Whether the court can direct restricted arrest procedures despite the FIR prima facie disclosing a cognizable offence.
Whether the order for restricted arrest applies if the investigation is completed and a report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Aditya Chaudhary
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Sunita Agarwal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/5340/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court