Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2021CRLP/8036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction against arrest, this Court directed that if the arrested individual may face a sentence of not more than seven years, police must strictly comply with statutory arrest procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A CrPC if arrest is made prior to filing investigation report.

Dhanpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8036 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhanpal And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar,Nand Lal Yadav 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 and learned A.G.A for the State- respondent.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 4.7.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 579 of 2021, under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur in so far as it relates to the petitioner as also for the direction to the respondent not to arrest him 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 A.G.A. 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 is 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 is 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 writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Gss

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpal and 3 Others 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

U.O.I. Thru G.M. North Central Railway and 3 Ors. Vs Kanta Prasad Charway and Another

Suneel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohd. Wamik and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Krishna Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others