High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajveer Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5715 of 2005  RD-AH 6176 (22 November 2005)
Court No. 3
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5715 of 2005.
Rajveer Singh. ....... ........ Petitioner.
State of U.P. through the Principal
Secretary, (Home), Lucknow and others. ........ Respondents.
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Shanker)
For the Petitioner : Sri Taha Bin Islam.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : A.G.A.
Amitava Lala, J. --- In the present case, the petitioner wanted to get an order of quashing the F.I.R. dated 9th May, 2005 lodged as Case Crime No. 69 of 2005, under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469 & 472 I.P.C. and 13 (2) & 13 (1) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. We are not inclined to do so because of various reasons reflected from the writ petition and other materials. We do not want to express our view to pass such negative order because the same may ultimately affect the investigation and trial, if any.
We have special justice delivery system in our State under the writ jurisdiction in connection with the criminal and quasi criminal matters. There is a reason behind introduction of such jurisdiction. No provision of anticipatory bail is available in this State. Therefore, in discharging judicial function in this jurisdiction this Court not only consider the ratio of the judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others), whereunder the Supreme Court framed certain guidelines in respect of quashing the F.I.R. in exercise of extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also ratio of the other judgements relevant for the purpose other than quashing of F.I.R. In 1994 (31) ACC 431 (Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police Officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do."
At the time of delivery of aforementioned judgement the Supreme Court has proceeded even to the extent of rights and personal liberties of the citizens under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in connection with arrest. Similar question of personal liberties in the cases of victims was also considered by the Supreme Court even upto the extent of grant of interim compensation as reported in AIR 1996 SC 922 (Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Miss. Subhra Chakraborty).
In 2002 SCC (Cri) 110 (Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar and others) the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"It is true that interference by the court at the investigation stage is not called for. However, it is equally true that the investigating agency cannot be given the latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time."
Therefore, what would be the analogy?
The analogy is that the Court in the restraint manner consider the individual cases and pass appropriate discretionary order/s, where it will be able to find justiciable. At the time of passing order the Court will also remember the distinguishable features in between quashing of F.I.R. and/or other reliefs and grounds for not to arrest to suffice the real purpose of the unique jurisdiction of this High Court.
The real purpose will be subserved, if this Court passes a conditional order of stay in a limited manner along with time bound programme for investigation. Conditions are as follows:-
1.This stay of arrest will operate only if certified copy of this order along with one self-attested copy of the writ petition is served upon the investigating officer within fifteen days from today.
2.The petitioner will not be arrested in respect of the said crime number during the pendency of the investigation, provided he/she cooperates with the investigation.
3.The investigating officer will make all possible efforts to conclude the investigation within three months of the date, on which a certified copy of this order is served upon him.
4.The stay of arrest will cease to operate, if it is decided to submit a charge sheet after investigation.
5.If the investigating officer and/or informant found himself aggrieved due to falsification, misstatement, fraud, non-cooperation with the investigating officer or any other reasons whatsoever relevant for the purpose, he/she/they is/are at liberty to apply for recalling/variation/vacating/ modification of the order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
However, no order is passed as to cost.
(Justice Amitava Lala)
(Justice Shiv Shanker)
Dated: 22nd November, 2005.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.