1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Shyam Sunder Upadhyay vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 February, 2019


Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4697 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 8.2.2019 registered as Case Crime No.105 of 2019, under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioner cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioner should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the FIR, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioner that he would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.
In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which he is wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41- A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Vandana
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Shyam Sunder Upadhyay vs State Of U P And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

21 February, 2019
  • Naheed Ara Moonis
  • Rajesh Pachauri