Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 6 May, 2024
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34711-DB
Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3199 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Kalhans,Ranjeet Singh Baghel,Saurabh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has filed power on behalf of respondent no.5 today in Court and the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned A.G.A. for State.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 31.03.2024 bearing case Crime No. 0105 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station-Jahangeerabad, District-Barabanki.
4. Submission of counsel for petitioner is that only allegation against the petitioner is with regard to threatening which falls under Section 506 I.P.C. and for the said offence maximum punishment for term is less that seven years of imprisonment and rest of the charges are not made out against petitioner either from the F.I.R, or from the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The main allegations are against co-accused Kuldeep Kumar @ Bablu. In the given circumstances, counsel for petitioner confines his prayer to protection prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
5. Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another.
6. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that let this petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.
7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
8. If during investigation any other Section is added, then the law will take its own course, meaning thereby, if the provisions contained in Section 41 or 41-A are not attracted to the said offence/section, then it shall be open for the police to proceed accordingly. Further, benefit of this order shall not be available to the co-accused Kuldeep Kumar @ Bablu who is named in the impugned F.I.R.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Arti/-
[Narendra Kumar Johari,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
