Ravi Kumar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12833 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7593 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai,Ashish Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramanuj Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Heardlearned counsel for the petitioners; Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 (informant).

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 17.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No.205 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baharia, District Prayagraj and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

The matter was taken up on 21.09.2021 and on the said date, the Court had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court. In response of the aforesaid order, the Registrar/Incharge, AHCMC has submitted a report on 01.6.2022 indicating therein that the mediation completed and no agreement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that 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. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on 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 :- 13.9.2022

RKP