Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bala Krishna Narayana, Naheed Ara Moonis, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Singh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 3 Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28471 of 2015
Decided On : 03-12-2015
FIR Quashing - Criminal Offences - The court refused to quash the FIR registered for offences under Sections 406, 419, and 420 I.P.C. as it disclosed a cognizable offence. The court directed that if the arrest is to be effectuated and the offence does not entail a sentence of more than 7 years, the police should comply with the provisions of Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and if the investigation is completed and a police report has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered for offences under Sections 406, 419, and 420 I.P.C. at a police station in Varanasi.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the FIR as it disclosed a cognizable offence and directed the police to comply with specific provisions if the arrest is to be effectuated.
Issues: Quashing of FIR, Compliance with Provisions for Arrest
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and directed the police to comply with specific provisions for arrest if the offence did not entail a sentence of more than 7 years.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court refused to quash the FIR, providing specific directions for compliance with arrest provisions.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No.161 of 2015, under Sections 406, 419 and 420 I.P.C., police station Kapsethi, district Varanasi.
3. This Court has the occasion to peruse the FIR and the FIR in question does discloses a cognizable offence, in view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the FIR, as has been prayed on behalf of petitioners, as such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the offence in question as has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is under Sections 406, 419 and 420 I.P.C. and the said offence even if the charges are found to be proved sentence of more than 7 years can not be awarded and, in view of this, mechanically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
5. The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners that they would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.
6. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioners is to be effectuated and the offence, in which they are wanted, will not entail sentence of more than 7 years then in that event concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
7. It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
8. Writ petition stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
