Allahabad High Court
Chandrashekhar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142295-DB Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11029 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chandrashekhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Sharma,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Ankit Namdev holding brief of Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 284 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, and for a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. Learned AGA submits that he has no instructions as to whether investigation is pending or not.
4. In paragraph 20 it has been stated that no police report under Section 173 CrPC has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgement and order dated 8.6.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8929 of 2023 (Praduman @ Vinod vs. State of UP and 2 others). He submits that present petition may also be disposed of in the same terms.
6. The said order dated 8.6.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8929 of 2023 (Praduman @ Vinod vs. State of UP and 2 others) is quoted as under:
"Heard Shri Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of FIR dated 25-05-2023 bearing Case Crime No. 284 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the offences are punishable under 7 years or less than 7 years.
The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below :
"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;
All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."
Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the freedom of the petitioner is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner in this case, petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.
It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the petitioner, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the petitioner, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is also directed that the I.O. of the case shall gear up the investigation and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days from today and submit its report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off."
7. Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 8.6.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8929 of 2023 (Praduman @ Vinod vs. State of UP and 2 others) as quoted above.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Pratima