Disposed

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022CRLP/15835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an FIR and seeking a direction not to arrest the petitioners. Relying on prior judgments regarding offences punishable under seven years and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar, the Court held that the concerned guidelines were applicable to the facts. The petition was consequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The instant writ petition stood disposed of in view of the judgments cited.

Rajendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15835 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajendra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahar Singh (Kashyap),Alok Ranjan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sharad Kumar Srivastava

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the FIR dated 19.08.2022, being Case Crime No.190 of 2022, under Sections 308, 325, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners 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 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.

¶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 :- 19.11.2022 ML

¶13

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.11.21 18:36:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Ramesh Bhonorimal Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalit Singh @ Babbu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Man Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Adarsh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others