Allahabad High Court
Malikhan Singh And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 May, 2024
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91053-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8348 of 2024
Petitioner :- Malikhan Singh And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Bhushan Rai
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. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the FIR in the instant case was registered even under Section 307 IPC and other allied offences, however subsequently, during the course of investigation, offence under Section 307 IPC has been dropped by the Investigating Officer and a report dated 29.02.2024 has been submitted to this effect, which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ petition.
3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 05.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 354-B, 324, 325, 427, 336 IPC, Police Station Khairgarh, District Firozabad, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 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 CrPC be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.
4. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offences 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 (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
5. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven 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 (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.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
Nadim
