Disposed¶9

Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025CRLP/1420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; petition disposed in terms of Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satendra Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 guidelines; Section 41-A Cr.P.C. arrest procedure; offences punishable with imprisonment upto seven years; BNS Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333; Case Crime No. 0013 of 2025; P.S. Govardhan, District Mathura; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Vimal Kumar 2021 (2) ACR 1147; protection from arrest; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 1420 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Order Date 23.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the Apex Court judgments noted above; the FIR was left untouched (not quashed), with the Apex Court arrest-guidelines held applicable to the petitioners. ¶9

Pratap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11716-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1420 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pratap And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mrityunjay Singh,Samir Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mritgyunjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for State respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 08.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0013 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333 of B.N.S., P.S. Govardhan, District Mathura. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Although prayer for quashing of FIR has been made but without insisting on the same only 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 petitioners have 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.

¶8

We have gone through the impugned first information report and without interfering in the same, 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.

¶9

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above.

¶10

Order Date :- 23.1.2025/S.K.S.

¶11

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases