Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19216 (ALL)

SUNIL KUMAR BAJPAYEE v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/3219/2025 · 2025-03-05

Rajiv Gupta, Subhash Chandra Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32101-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3219 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Bajpayee Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Kumar,G.A.,Pawan Kumar Yadav,S. A. Khan Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Shri S.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 05.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 867 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Nadim Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad