Disposed

Manoj Fauji v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023CRLP/20416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and a direction preventing the petitioner's arrest. Relying on Apex Court guidelines, the court held the petitioner could not be arrested without following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. procedures.

What did the court decide?

The erstwhile petition stands disposed of; police must follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. procedures before arrest.

Manoj Fauji Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104156-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20416 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Manoj Fauji Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kapil Tyagi

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sushil Jaiswal, learned State Law Officer for the State State respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 14.11.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 1018 of 2022, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, P.S.Sikandrabad, District Bulandhshar and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶8

Learned State Law Officer for the State respondents submits that he is not having latest instructions in the matter, however, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per his information investigation is still pending in the present case.

¶9

The submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto 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. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017, Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others in 2021 (2) ACR 1147.

¶10

We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex 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 terms of the judgements as noted above.

¶12

Order Date :- 12.5.2023

¶13

Nitendra

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Fauji v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Fauji 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahernoor Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irfan Parveen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tasleem and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others