Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1201 (ALL)

Shyam Raj Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-04-04

V.K.SHUKLA, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Shyam Raj Yadav son Uday Raj Yadav and three others are before this Court with a request to quash the FIR dated 06.06.2015 bearding Case Crime No. 192 of 2015, under Sections 147,504, 506, 332, 333, 353 IPC and Section 3/4 of U.P. Medical Service Persons and Medical Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damages to Property) Ordinance, 2013, at police Station Meja, district Allahabad. 2. Earlier petitioners have been before this Court with a prayer to quash this very FIR dated 06.06.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 192 of 2015 under Sections 147, 504, 506, 332, 353 IPC at police station Meja, district Allahabad and at the said point of time Section 333 IPC as well as Section 3/4 of U.P. Medical Service Persons and Medical Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damages to Property) Ordinance, 2013 have not been mentioned. This Court at the said point of time has passed following orders: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. Petitioners, who are four in number, have approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR dated 06.06.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 192 of 2015 under Sections 147, 504, 506, 332, 353 IPC at police station Meja, district Allahabad This Court has the occasion to peruse the FIR and the FIR in question does discloses a cognizable offence, in view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the FIR, as has been prayed on behalf of petitioners, as such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the offence in question as has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are under Sections 147, 504, 506, 332, 353 IPC and for none of the offences even if the charges are found to be proved sentence of more than 7 years can not be awarded and, in view of this, mechanically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel. 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 are to be effectuated and the offence, in which they are wanted, will not entail sentence of more than 7 years then in that event 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. Writ petition stands disposed of." 3. Now, petitioners are once again before this Court and their submission is that as Section 333 IPC read with Section 3/4 of U.P. Medical Service Persons and Medical Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damages to Property) Ordinance, 2013 has been sought to be disclosed during the course of investigation, as such this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioners by quashing the FIR in question. 4. Arguments that have been advanced on behalf of petitioners are misconceived and devoid of substance for the simple reason that this Court on earlier occasion after perusing the FIR in question has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by clearly and categorically mentioning therein that FIR in question does disclose a cognizable offence. 5. Once this Court has refused to accord any relief to petitioners on the premises that cognizable offence has been disclosed and on subsequent occasion, new offence has been disclosed then merely on asking of petitioners, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition by quashing this very FIR in question. In view of this, present writ petition is dismissed.