Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition filed for quashing an FIR and preventing arrest. The Hon'ble Court held that Supreme Court guidelines mandating procedural compliance before arrest apply to the facts. Petition disposed without granting 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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4406 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ishu Srivastava @ Rakshak Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Ram Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 10.03.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 0130 of 2023, under Sections 147, 352, 323, 506 IPC P.S.Dhumanganj, District- Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
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 judgment 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 and in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147.
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 judgment are equally applicable to the facts of the instance case.
Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgments as noted above.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Shivani
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition should be disposed of in light of Supreme Court guidelines preventing automatic arrest for offences punishable up to seven years without complying with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharFollowed¶7
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶7
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherFollowed¶7
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Vimal Kumar & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 OthersFollowed¶7
Vimal Kumar & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147
Ishu Srivastava @ Rakshak Srivastava
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
