Disposed

Manoj Kumar Singhal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022CRLP/19010/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and direction for non-arrest. Court held that guidelines regarding offences punishable with seven years or less imprisonment are applicable. Since investigating agencies failed to comply with statutory procedure, the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of based on non-compliance by investigating agencies with Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. and framed guidelines.

Manoj Kumar Singhal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19010 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singhal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned State Law Officer.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 25.4.2022 being Case Crime No.0484 of 2022 under Section 504, 506, 384 IPC, P.S. Indrapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad 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 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

¶9

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 :- 9.12.2022 SP/

¶13

Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.12.19 16:03:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Singhal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singhal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Ramakant Ram Vs State of U P and Another

Ismail Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lallu @ Mansoor Ahamd Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others