The Court considered a petition to quash an FIR and prevent arrest. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding arrest mandates under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the Court applied existing guidelines to the facts and disposed of the petition without providing specific relief.
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. - 18718 of 2022
Petitioner :- Satish Chand Raja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA, assisted by Sri Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, State Law OfÏcer for the State-Respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 11.10.2022 being Case Crime No.0702 of 2022 under Sections 354, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Etmatdaula, Distt. Agra and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
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 41-A 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.
The investigating agencies and their ofÏcers 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 ofÏcer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police ofÏcer 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 judgements 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 :- 9.12.2022
n.u.
Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.12.09 14:41:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the FIR and avoid arrest under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable with seven years imprisonment.
Whether the guidelines framed by this Court and the Apex Court applicable to offences with seven years punishment cover the facts of this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 othersRelied on¶7
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) 28.01.2021
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶8
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of IndiaReferred¶8
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satish Chand Raja
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
