Disposed

Sonu Sonkar and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2024CRLP/21916/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CriminalMisc Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR and compliance with arrest provisions. Court refused quash opinion on cognizable offences but directed authorities to comply with BNS and CrPC arrest guidelines per Arunesh Kumar guidelines before arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; authorities directed to comply with arrest guidelines before arrest.

Sonu Sonkar and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192666-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21916 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sonu Sonkar And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Kapoor Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 25-10-2024 registered as Case Crime No. 443 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2), 76 of B.N.S. and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mugal Sarai, District Chandauli, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

¶8

We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

¶9

However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines

¶10

issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 , be strictly complied with.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.12.2024

¶13

pks

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Sonkar and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sonkar and Another v. State of Up 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

Pankaj Mishra vs State of Up and 4 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dilip Rai vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kirti Bhushan Singh and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Parul Soloman @ Parul Baldev Principal vs State of Up and 9 Others

Parul Soloman @ Parul Baldev vs State of Up and 12 Others