Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction against arrest. Found guidelines framed in Vital Kumar and Arnesh Kumar cases equally applicable where offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment or less, disposing the petition.
Petition disposed of following guidelines framed in Vimal Kumar and Arnesh Kumar cases.
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. - 12632 of 2022
Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Pramod Shukla,Ramendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adarsh Srivastava,Rajeev Kumar,Reena Pal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 23.8.2022 being Case Crime No. 318 of 2022 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC P.S. Gulawathi, Distt. Bulandshahr and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner 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 41A Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 recognized 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 judgement 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 :- 22.9.2022 AKK
Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.09.23 11:21:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petition for quashing FIR and direction against arrest is maintainable under guidelines applicable to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less.
Whether police authorities complied with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. before effecting arrest in a case punishable with seven years imprisonment.
Whether non-compliance with Section 41 Cr.P.C. regarding recording reasons for arrest in writing is material to quash the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 othersReferred¶7
Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶7
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Chandra Prakash
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
