Disposed

Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022CRLP/12687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed for quashing an FIR and praying for a direction not to arrest the petitioner. The court applied procedural guidelines regarding arrest for offences punishable up to seven years, relying on precedents, and disposed of the petition without specific detailed orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; specific arrest guidelines applied; no explicit stay directed.

Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12687 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.T. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 31.08.2022, being Case Crime No. 145 of 2022, under Section 500 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2008 at Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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).

¶10

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.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 n.u./ML

¶13

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.10.21 15:23:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samim Abbas Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mukesh Bansal and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ravi Lal @ Ravi Lal Vishwakarma Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt. Sandhya Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gautam Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another