SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors. vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 26 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 9

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 17334 of 2019

Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Gupta Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Suryavanshi

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.

Hon’ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No.1108/2018, dated 27.11.2018, under Sections-498A,323,504,506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, related to P.S.Chinhat, District Lucknow.

2. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 1.8.2019, opposite party no.4, Smt.Sejal Gupta, daughter of Ajay Kumar Gupta is present. She was summoned for the purpose of getting her consent for sending the matter to the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow. A sum of Rs.5,000/-, which was fixed by the Court, has been handed over today to the opposite party no.4. However, so far the consent is concerned, she has categorically submitted that she does not want to enter into any kind of mediation. She does not see any good chance for mediation.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State states that the offence(s) allegedly committed entail a sentence up to seven years. In such circumstances, the investigating officer shall ensure compliance of provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5. We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State. In Arnesh Kumar’s case(supra) the following(relevant portion) has been held:-

“9. Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows:

“41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-

(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”

“The aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.” (emphasized by us)

6. Considering the stand taken by learned counsel for the State in context of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra), relevant portion from which has been extracted above, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 26.8.2019

Irfan

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation