Allahabad High Court
Krishna Sawarup Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35641-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3886 of 2023
Petitioner :- Krishna Sawarup Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Mishra,Naveen Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material placed on record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 15.04.2023, being F.I.R./Case Crime No. 225/2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, at Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur; and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant/opposite party No.4 is not the wife of the petitioner and she has made false allegation against him for demand of dowry and harassment because of matrimonial dispute.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 judgement 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 :- 22.5.2023
ML/-
