Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And 10 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 30 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99517-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8959 of 2024
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And 10 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Prabhkar Dubey, learned counsel for complainant; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the F.I.R. dated 09.5.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 70 of 2024, under Section 420 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Meerut.
Allegation in the FIR is that petitioners were given illegal appointments without advertisement of the posts and following procedure for selection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were given appointments by Nagar Ayukt, Sanjaya Krishna. He was also implicated in case and he challenged it before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8917 of 2024 vide order dated 27.5.2024 as follows:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
\2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence, complained of, is 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.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner 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 the offence, complained of in the impugned FIR, is punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner 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."
Initially petitioners were also implicated under Section 420 IPC by the Investigating Officer. Subsequently they have been implicated under Section 7/8/13 Prevention of Corruption Act. Investigation is going on.
Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
This writ petition is disposed of directing that till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the respondents are restrained from arresting the petitioners pursuant to the impugned First Information Report, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Ruchi Agrahari
(Surendra Singh-I,J.) (Siddharth, J.)
