Brief Facts 

In the Matter at hand, Rajkumari v. State of UP A writ petition is sought to nullify the First Information Report in accordance with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodity Act of 1955 and to order the respondents not to arrest the petitioner or accused in response to the aforementioned FIR. According to the accused, because the alleged actions are punished by a seven-year sentence in prison, the police must follow the procedure outlined in Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was falsely accused and was not apprehended.

Analysis of Court Verdict 

According to the division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia of the Allahabad High Court, a police officer has a responsibility to document the circumstances surrounding an arrest in writing. The individual suspected of the crime would undoubtedly profit from the consequences of not complying with Section 41.

The Court ruled that these clauses require the arresting officer to document his justifications in writing. Therefore, it is a police officer’s responsibility to document the grounds for the arrest in writing. The individual who is accused of committing the crime would undoubtedly gain from the consequences of not complying with Section 41. The Court stated that it is clear that Sections 41 and 41-A are aspects of Article 21 of the Constitution when discussing their purpose and scope. Additionally, after reading the FIR, the Court expressed its opinion that the facts of the current case are equally appropriate to the rules established by the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the writ petition in light of this