Disposed

Amarjeet v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2021CRLP/7983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and directed non-arrest based on alleged minor status. The Court declined to quash the FIR but directed police to strictly follow Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is attempted in an offense punishable by less than seven years, noting the protection expires after a Section 173(2) report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to comply strictly with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. if arrest is made pre-Section 173(2) report in an offense punishable by max seven years.

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7983 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amarjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava,Subhash Chand Kanaujia Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned first information report dated 20.04.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0077 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354(b) and 304 IPC, P.S.-Jansa, District-Varanasi 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.

¶6

By bringing the High school examination marksheet of the year, 2019 of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner herein is minor and moreover the allegations against him in the first information report in question are false and concocted.

¶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 the situation.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Subject to the above, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Harshita

Amarjeet v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet 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

Hemendra Agrawal @ Chunmun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shruti Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kutubuddin and Others Vs State of Up and Others

Rishi Kumar Goyal Vs State of Up and Others

Lala @ Rama Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bharat and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others