Disposed

Ravendra and and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022CRLP/1506/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under sections including 498-A IPC and protection from arrest. The court held that the applicable guidelines regarding arrest procedures and the concept that bail is the rule were equally applicable to the facts of the case, leading to the disposal of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ravendra and and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1506 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravendra And And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nitin Raj Singh,Raj Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. Shri Nitin Raj Singh appears for the informant.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 17.11.2021 being Case Crime No.455 of 2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 354 (Ka) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sasni Gate, Distt. Aligarh and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

Since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and there was chance of amicable settlement, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has referred the matter for mediation vide order dated 22.2.2022. In response thereof, the Registrar/ Incharge, AHCMCC has submitted report dated 7.7.2022 to the effect "Mediation Completed. No agreement."

¶8

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 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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).

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 8.12.2022 SP/

¶14

Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.12.09 17:06:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravendra and and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravendra and and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ved Prakash Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Ram Vs State of U P and Another

Tapesh Pachauri and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others