Allahabad High Court
Harish Kumar Maurya And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 November, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179105-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20459 of 2024
Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Maurya And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvat Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the F.I.R. dated 19.08.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0258 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Neoria, District Pilibhit.
3. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present FIR is an outcome of dispute between the parties. All the offences, complained of, are punishable only upto 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.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 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 cases 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.
5. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of, in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term upto 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 Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.11.2024
RKP
