Disposed

Purushottam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2022A227/2286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 assailing the rejection of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner alleged tainted police investigation. The Court directed the investigating officer to adhere to Rule 107 of U.P. Police Regulations and instructed the S.P.P. to monitor the investigation standards.

What did the court decide?

Reiterated expectations for police investigation under Rule 107 U.P. Police Regulations and instructed S.P.P. to monitor.

Purushottam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2286 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Purushottam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 01.12.2021 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Court No.3, Agra has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶7

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in Case Crime No.915 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 395, 307 332, 353, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. The contention raised is that the petitioner is not named but the police is making tainted investigation in order to falsely implicate him.

¶8

It is expected from the concerned investigating officer that he would conduct the investigation thoroughly in a professional way. In this regard, the Court has laid its hand to the Rule 107 of the U.P. Police Regulations which reads hereunder:

¶9

"107. An investigating officer is not to regard himself as a mere clerk for the recording of statements. It is his duty to observe and to infer. In every case he must use his own expert observations of the scene of the offence and of the general circumstances to check the evidence of witnesses, and in cases in which the culprits are unknown to determine the direction in which he shall look for them. He must study the methods of local offenders who are known to the police with a view to recognizing their handiwork, and he must be on his guard against accepting the suspicions of witness and complainants when they conflict with obvious inferences from facts. He must remember that it is his duty to find out the truth and not merely to obtain convictions. He must not prematurely commit himself to any view of the facts for or against any person and though he need not go out of his way to hunt up evidence for the defence in a case in which he has satisfactory grounds for believing that an accused person is guilty, he must always give accused persons an opportunity of producing defence evidence before him, and must consider such evidence carefully if produced. Burglary investigations should be conducted in accordance with the special orders on the subject. "

¶10

In view of the above, the concerned investigating officer is expected to conduct the investigation unaffected by any observations made in the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 and conclude the same within the time stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

S.S.P. Agra is also required to have a close vigil over the standard of investigation conducted by the investigating officer strictly in accordance with the aforesaid rule of U.P. Police Regulations.

¶12

With these observations, the present petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Ajeet

¶13

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.11 16:52:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Purushottam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Ram Sahai Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harbeer Vs State of U.P.

Nasira Vs State

Panchun Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Master Kartik Kannaujia (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others