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

Vipul Tyagi And Another vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|24 June, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17044 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vipul Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 4.6.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 116 of 2019 under Section 379, 411, 420 IPC & under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act & under Section 3 of the Public Property and Damages Act, P.S. Girwan, District Banda.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 petitioners that they 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 petitioners is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which they are 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 petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.6.2019 A. V. Singh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Vipul Tyagi And Another vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
24 June, 2019
Judges
  • Naheed Ara Moonis
Advocates
  • Rajesh Kumar