The High Court declined to examine a challenge to an order adding new offences to an existing FIR, holding that no injury was caused due to an existing stay on arrest. The petitioner may challenge the new charges independently when filed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2671 of 2022
Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2021, passed by respondent no. 2, directing District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar to take steps to add offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and offence under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in the FIR that is already registered against the petitioner for not supplying the custom milled rice in time. This direction has been given as respondent no. 2 is of the opinion that the petitioner has also committed economic offence, punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Learned counsel submitted that the original FIR is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6989 of 2021 and this Court has stayed his arrest till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It is submitted that the impugned direction amounts to interference in fair investigation by the Investigating Officer.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is always open to the State to include offence in a FIR already under investigation, if there is evidence of commission of offence under other provisions of law.
Be that as it may, since the arrest of the petitioner is already stayed till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, in the writ petition filed by him, challenging the FIR, we are of the opinion that no injury is going to be caused to the petitioner on account of the impugned order and as and when sections are included, or charge sheet is submitted under new section, the petitioner will have remedy of challenging the charge sheet in independent proceedings. Therefore, we decline to examine the challenge led against the impugned order at this stage.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 24.3.2022 Jaideep/-
Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.03.25 13:12:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order directing inclusion of additional offences under the Essential Commodities Act and U.P. Gangsters Act in an existing FIR causes injury to the petitioner given the stay of arrest pend
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subodh Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
