Sarvesh Kumar Mishra And Ors. vs The State Of U.P Thru S.S.P., ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1472 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6591 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Mishra And Ors.
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru S.S.P., Lucknow And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.

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

This petition  has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 20.7.2015 in Case Crime No.399 of 2015 under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. PS.Madiyaun, District Lucknow and further prayer is not to arrest or humiliate the petitioners in the aforesaid crime.

Learned counsel for the  petitioners submitted that on the false allegation the petitioners have been implicated in the present case.   The maximum sentence is seven years, hence there is no need to arrest the petitioners during the investigation.  There is apprehension of the arrest. Hence, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. 

Learned A.G.A.  opposed the  aforesaid prayer.

Considered the submissions. Though in view of the allegation made in the First Information Report it cannot be said that  prima facie no commission of offence is disclosed, hence at this stage it is not a fit case for quashing of the First Information Report. However, in view of the allegation and in view of the provision of newly added section 41A Cr.P.C. the accused is not required to be arrested by the police during investigation. If credible evidence is available against the petitioners and arrest is required, then the notice has to be issued directing the accused to appear before the court at a specified place. In case  the accused failed to comply with the terms of the notice and if it is found by the police that the arrest was required, then the accused might be arrested. The Investigating Officer is expected to observe the provision as provided under section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, after arrest of the accused, they have to be produced before the Magistrate concerned who shall examine the reason mentioned in the case diary for arresting the accused to satisfy himself that the arrest was made in accordance with exceptional circumstances indicated in the sections and the Magistrate is expected to pass the appropriate order in view of the fact and law.

With the above observation this petition is finally disposed off.

Order Date :- 27.7.2015

RK