Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2499 (ALL)

Sushil Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-07-19

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT It appears that an FIR has been lodged bearing Case Crime No. 236 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar and against whom FIR has been lodged namely Sushil Kumar and two others have been before this Court by preferring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10961 of 2016 wherein this Court has proceeded to pass the following order; "In paragraph 20 of this writ petition, it has been stated that investigation in this matter is still pending. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. Petitioners have approached this Court with a request to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 236 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District-Muzaffar Nagar. 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 is under Sections 406, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and the said offence 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 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. 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. Writ petition stands disposed of." Now the petitioner is once again before this Court with the prayer that writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his minor children and further prayer has been made to direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner and his minor children in any manner whatsoever. In case private incumbents are taking law into their own hands, then the provisions as mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code can always be invoked by the petitioner provided that a case is made out and, in case, petitioner intends for any security in question, he can always approach the district authorities under the Government Order dated 9.5.2014 but present writ petition does not deserves any orders to be passed by us, as sole anxiety of petitioner is that the incumbent against whom he has proceeded to lodge the FIR should be arrested forthwith and be sent behind the bars. Writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.