Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jagbeer And 2 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15032 ALL

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15032 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Jagbeer And 2 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 1 May, 2024

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77505-DB
 
Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6959 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Jagbeer And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Azhar Hussain,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

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

2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 29.03.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0039 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354(B) I.P.C., Police Station- Dauki, District- North (Commissionerate Agra) but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 1.5.2024

Abhishek Singh

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter