Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
Sagar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This petition seeks issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 72 of 2024 under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act,1955, Police Station Mahigawan, district Lucknow.
3. The punishment for the offences mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less than seven years.
4. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 4 is dispensed with.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate looking to the gravity of punishment being less than seven years has stated that the 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.
6. The present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned A.G.A.
7. 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).
The court reinforced the necessity of following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences with a punishment of less than seven years, as per the Supreme Court's guidelines.
The court reaffirmed the necessity of following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences with a punishment of less than seven years, as per the Supreme Court's guidance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for offences entailing a sentence of less than seven years, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the ca....
The court established that for offenses punishable by less than seven years, the arrest must comply with the specific provisions outlined in Section 35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 202....
The court can quash F.I.R. and subsequent proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties, following established legal principles.
An F.I.R. is invalid if it is not supported by a duly sworn affidavit from the complainant, as mandated by Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
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
