This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and prohibition of arrest. Applying Supreme Court guidelines on arrest mandatory procedures, the court allowed the plea.
Petition disposed of; First Information Report quashed; Petitioner directed not to be arrested.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12860 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 16.5.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506, 353 I.P.C., P.S. Belipar, District Gorakhpur and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
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. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 and co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 .
We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgements are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in the light of the judgments as noted above.
Order Date :- 28.9.2022 Arif
Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.09.30 09:40:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could be arrested without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharApplied¶6
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶6
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India
Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶6
Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Niwas Yadav
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
