Dismissed

Ram Milan and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020CRLP/13720/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and stay of arrest. It held that allegations of demolishing a house and destroying goods made the FIR maintainable. The Court also declined the prayer for stay of arrest, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow arrest after quashing is denied. The Court noted that the petitioners could separately seek anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing FIR and stay of arrest was dismissed. The Court noted the right to seek anticipatory bail separately.

Ram Milan and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 35 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13720 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Milan And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶4

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, praying for quashing of the First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 92 of 2020 under Sections 506, 504, 427, 380, 452, 147 I.P.C., P.S.-Kamasin, District- Banda, with a further prayer to stay their arrest during pendency of investigation of the said case.

¶5

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and stay of arrest and submitted that from the perusal of First Information Report, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly made out, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.

¶6

We have perused the first information report and we find that the main allegation is that the petitioners forcibly entered the house of the first informant and demolished it, resulting in total destruction of house hold goods worth Rs. 2.70 lacs. The aforesaid act was done in violation of injunction order operating in her favour. Consequently, we do not find it a fit case where F.I.R. can be quashed.

¶7

In respect of the second prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for stay of arrest of the petitioners till submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we would like to take notice of the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani; 2017 (2) SCC 779 wherein the Supreme Court has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies from arresting the accused where prayer for quashing the FIR has been declined. Relying on the said decision, the Supreme Court entertained Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2020 (Samiksha Singh @ Nikki v. The State of U.P. & Others) wherein similar direction issued by the High Court staying arrest until the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was under challenge. The order is as follows: -

¶8

"1. Mr Sanchit Garga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that while the High Court declined to quash the FIR, at the same time, it has granted an order protecting the accused from arrest until the submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which, it has been submitted, is impermissible in law. He relies on a decision of this Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani.

¶9

2. Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

¶10

3. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, in addition."

¶11

Having regard to the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana (supra), we also decline to grant the second prayer.

¶12

Before parting, we would like to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349 in relation to personal liberty of a citizen and the manner in which police officer should exercise his power to arrest accused person, so that the same is duly complied with:-

¶13

"No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. 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 the Station without permission would do."

¶14

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner(s) to seek anticipatory bail/bail, in case the situation warrants. If any such recourse is taken, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.

¶15

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 skv

Ram Milan and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyanchand Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ashok and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pattidar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sahab Singh and Others Vs State

Askeen and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ataul Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others