The Court disposed of a writ petition filed for quashing an FIR under 419/420 IPC and the U.P. Public Examination Act. The court held that guidelines regarding Section 41-A Cr.P.C. apply, and the petition is disposed of in view of cited judgments.
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. - 15876 of 2022 Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 27.9.2022 being Case Crime No.149 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 6/10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, Police Station Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 41-A 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 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 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 judgment 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 :- 19.11.2022 RKP
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.19 14:46:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the need to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. guidelines for offences punishable by seven years or less applies to the instant case.
Whether the guidelines framing bail as the rule and jail as the exception apply to the facts of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶7
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
(2018) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 othersRelied on¶6
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Adarsh Kumar Yadav
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
