Disposed

Syed Rizwan Murtaza v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2024/9880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal MCL Writ Petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 379, 504, and 506, asserting arrest was illegal for a sentence under seven years. The Court disposed of the petition relying on Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of relying on Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar principles to prevent arrest.

Syed Rizwan Murtaza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:86268-DB

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9880 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Syed Rizwan Murtaza Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abul Fazal Jaffrey,Uma Shankar Lal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sudeep Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.

¶8

This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.12.2024, bearing Case Crime No.0153 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 379,504,506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences as alleged in FIR have maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment, whereas, the police is trying to arrest him, which is against the mandates of Code of Criminal Procedure (Now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023).

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another .

¶11

Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that let this petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.

¶12

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

¶13

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 20.12.2024 Arjun/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Syed Rizwan Murtaza v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Rizwan Murtaza v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Anil Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Saba Parveen and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Lavkush Thru. His Mother Ramshri and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Shahin Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Prashant Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Others