Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PRAKASH GUPTA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Prakash Gupta & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 12276 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 14423 (23 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12276 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

On 18.10.2006, the arrest of the petitioners was stayed in case crime No. 109 of 2006 on the ground that the basis of the first information report appeared to be suspicion or probability of double payment. It was held by that interim order dated 18.10.2006 that lodging of an F.I.R. is a serious matter and should be done after verifying the complete facts and not on vague suspicion and probabilities.

A short counter affidavit has been filed which says that investigation is still in progress and a detailed counter affidavit would be filed after completing the investigation,

However, even the facts mentioned in this counter affidavit do not indicate any cogent corroborative material confirming the suspicion or probability mentioned in the F.I.R. Ten months having passed and it not being clear whether investigation had yet been completed or not and in view of the facts aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition finally with the following directions.

In the case of Mahendra Lal Das v State of Bihar 2002 SCC (Crl) 110  it has been held by the Supreme Court that while interference by Courts at investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time.

(1) The investigation will be completed within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the Investigating Officer or any police officer of the district to whom the investigating officer is directly subordinate;

(2) The petitioners will not be arrested during pendency and for the purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is presented before the police officer as directed above within one month from today;

(3) If certified copy is not presented within the time aforesaid the stay of arrest will not operate;

(4) If at the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet is submitted instead of final report, it will be open to the Judicial Magistrate, if he decides to take cognizance, to summon the accused by summons or warrants in accordance with Section 204 Cr.P.C. after copies have been prepared for compliance with Section 207/208 Cr.P.C.

 (5) If for any unavoidable reason, the investigation cannot be completed within the aforesaid time of three months, it will be open to the investigating officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a misc. application for enlargement of said time of three months by giving details of the investigation conducted during the aforesaid period of three months and also giving reasons why the investigation could not be completed within the time specified above;

(6) If the charge sheet is decided to be submitted to the Court of magistrate, in column no. 3 of the prescribed form of charge sheet, it will be mentioned that the accused have not been arrested on account of stay order granted by this Court;

(7)  The accused will cooperate with the investigation  and in case of non-cooperation or otherwise if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that for any other valid reason the arrest of accused is necessary during or for the purpose of investigation it will be open to the Investigating Officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a Misc. application giving details of non-cooperation as also details of what kind of cooperation is expected by the accused for completing investigation or why the arrest is otherwise necessary so that interim stay of arrest granted hereby may be vacated.

Dated: August 23, 2007

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.