Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Suhail And 7 Others vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 20 February, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25068-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21849 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mohammad Suhail And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rishi Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-12-2024, had referred the matter for mediation centre of this Court. As per the report submitted by Registrar, In-Charge, AHCMCC, dated 01-02-2025, the petitioner has not deposited the requisite amount.
3. Learned Counsel for the informant submits even otherwise on the merits of the case, cognizable offence is made out.
4. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 15-10-2022 registered as Case Crime No. 309 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 315 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cholapur, District Varuna (Commissionaire Varanasi), but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
Order Date :- 20.2.2025
pks
