Allahabad High Court
Bunty @ Dinesh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Gajendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11222 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bunty @ Dinesh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Laloriya,Dileep Chandra Mathur
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Advocates are abstaining from judicial work. Shri S.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appears for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 17.07.2022 being Case Crime No.0197 of 2022 under Sections 323, 354 (Ka), 354 (Kha), 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
It transpires from the record that the respondent no.4 was married to petitioner no.1 in the year 2016. After the marriage, some dispute arose between them and she left the house of the petitioner and started living with her parents. Earlier, the respondent no.4 had lodged the first information report on 11.4.2018 against the petitioners. No doubt in the said proceeding, the charge sheet has also been submitted before the Court below and all the accused persons were enlarged on bail by the Court below on 10.7.2019. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Moradabad for reconciliation between the parties but the mediation was failed before the Court below. In the impugned FIR, all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore, the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. as well as in the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.
The investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).
We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgment are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above.
Order Date :- 25.8.2022
RKP
