Disposed¶5

Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025CRLP/4435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused - FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offence; offences punishable up to seven years; arrest safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A CrPC; Arnesh Kumar guidelines (2014) 8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil directions dated 21.01.2025; Allahabad High Court directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar, 2021 (2) ACR 1147; IPC Sections 420 and 406; P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya; writ petition disposed of; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33055-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without quashing the FIR; protective directions issued that any arrest of the petitioner must strictly comply with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC, the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the High Court's directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar, and the Apex Court's directions dated 21.01.2025 in Satender Kumar Antil. ¶5

Chandan Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 27.12.2024 (Case Crime No. 840 of 2024, Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya) should be quashed. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner; therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained and no interference is warranted.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences alleged are punishable up to seven years, in case the petitioner is arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC, the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the directions dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Vimal Kumar (W.P. No. 17732 of 2020), and the Apex Court directions dated 21.01.2025 in Satender Kumar Antil.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajiv Gupta and Nand Prabha Shukla, JJ.) disposed of a criminal misc. writ petition seeking quashing of FIR dated 27.12.2024 (Case Crime No. 840 of 2024, Sections 420 and 406 IPC, P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya). Holding that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the Court declined interference, relying on State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. Since the offences alleged are punishable up to seven years, the Court directed that, if the petitioner is arrested, there be strict compliance with Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC, the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the directions dated 28.01.2021 of the Allahabad High Court in Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and the Apex Court directions dated 21.01.2025 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:33055-DB.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33055-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4435 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Narayan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 27.12.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 840 of 2024, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC 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 the cognizable offence against the petitioner 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 case 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 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner 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 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble

¶10

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 , and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Subham

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Rabish Rai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Singh @ Rajola and 5 Others vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramraj Kumhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramraj Kumhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others