Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Rai And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 November, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180751-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18285 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pankaj Rai And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Kumar Rai,G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State respondent and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred to quash the FIR dated 12.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0792 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.
3. While entertaining the instant petition, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 remitted the matter to the Mediation Centre of the High Court.
4. Report of Mediation Centre dated 29.04.2023 shows that only petitioner no. 1 (husband) appeared on all the dates fixed before the Mediation Centre and nobody turn up on behalf of the respondent no. 4 in the said proceedings.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction may be issued to the Mediation Centre to return the amount and he further submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only 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/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.
6. 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.
7. 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/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.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner may move an application to return the amount deposited before the Mediation Centre.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
Bhanu
