Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2199 (ALL)

Akhilraj Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2016-06-15

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR dated 5.2.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 48 of 2016 under Sections 153-A IPC and Section 66 (e) of the Information Technology (Amended) Act at Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur. 3. 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 petitioner, as such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that as far as petitioner is concerned, the offence in question, as has been alleged to have been committed by him is under Sections 153-A IPC and Section 66 (e) of the Information Technology (Amended) Act and for the same 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. 5. 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. 6. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated and the offence, in which he is 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. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that petitioner Akhilraj Srivastava is minor and in spite of the same he has been arrayed as accused in the present case, as such, all the benefits that are extendable to a juvenile, as is provided for under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is liable to be extended to him. 8. Once such is the factual situation, this Court refuses to interfere with the FIR and ongoing investigation but proceeds to mention that it is always expected that, at the point of time, when petitioner is to be arrested and, at the said point of time, he claims that he is juvenile, this fact should be brought to the knowledge and notice of the investigation agency, who shall on finding that petitioner is juvenile, shall take into account the provisions, as are provided for under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, provided that there is documentary evidence that should disclose that he is juvenile. 9. However, in the facts of the case, as far as, petitioner is concerned, in case, he surrenders and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his bail application in question be dealt with in accordance with law as settled by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290. With this, writ petition stands disposed of.