Anil Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16825 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118416-DB
 
Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8176 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Verma in person, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and validity of the F.I.R. dated 02.05.2023 in Case Crime No.0231 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

From the FIR, it is evident that the FIR was lodged by Sanjeev Kumar Bakharwan, special public prosecutor who has lodged this FIR against the petitioner on frivolous grounds. It is contended by the petitioner that he is already facing a Case No.0162 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.483 of 2017, under sections 342, 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act and that case is at the verge of culmination but the said public prosecutor was having some grudge and booghs against the petitioner and that is why he has lodged this FIR.

Without making any comments upon the merits of the case, the sections pasted are punishable within less than 7 years of imprisonment and the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below :

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the freedom of the petitioner is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner in this case, petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.

It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the petitioner, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the petitioner, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off.

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

Shiv