This Court quashed the FIR and directed that the petitioners not be arrested, holding that the guidelines under Section 41 Cr.P.C. regarding offenses punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less applied to the facts.
Petition disposed of, FIR quashed, direction issued that petitioners not be arrested pursuant to the FIR.
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. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12266 of 2022 Petitioner :- Salman Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap Singh,P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 07.10.2021 being Case Crime No.465 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
The submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 ( Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others ) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.
The investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India , (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons
for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).
We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgment are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above. Order Date :- 15.9.2022 RKP
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.09.16 16:28:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar requiring adherence to Section 41 Cr.P.C. for offenses with seven years or less punishment apply to quash the said FIR to direct the petitioners not to be arrest
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharApplied¶7
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
(2018) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 othersRelied on¶6
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Salman Khan and 3 Others
State of U.P. and 2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
