Disposed

Tukman Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2021CRLP/8360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition for quashing an FIR related to Sections 295-A IPC and 66 IT Act. Instead of quashing, it directed the police to strictly comply with Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A for arrest if the offence does not entail a sentence exceeding seven years, provided investigation remains incomplete.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to strictly comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A of Cr.P.C. if arrest is made for offences not attracting sentence beyond 7 years.

Tukman Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8360 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Tukman Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Yadav 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 petitioner for quashing the impugned first information report dated 23.07.2021 registered as Case Crime No.184 of 2021 under Section 295-A IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act, P.S.-Awagarh, District-Etah 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.

¶6

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.

¶7

Learned AGA opposed the petition.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and the petitioner 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.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in the event arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated and the offence, in which

¶13

he is 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 . Order Date :- 1.10.2021 P Kesari

Tukman Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukman Singh 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

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

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

Santosh Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditi Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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