Dismissed

Arafat Alam v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023CRLP/654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge division of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking consolidation of three FIRs registered for the same incident. The court held that since the FIRs involved different police stations and different accused persons, the principle from T.T. Antony was inapplicable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as it was deemed devoid of merits.

Arafat Alam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 654 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Arafat Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Ojha,Mohammad Rehan Sayeed

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohd. Rehan Sayeed, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. Abhijeet Mukharji, learned State Law Officer for the State respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to direct the respondent no.2/S.S.P., Prayagraj to consolidate/merged same incident or occurrence in series of 3 F.I.R. which is quoted below:-

¶8

"(a) Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 437, 436, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and 83 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Khuldabad, District Prayagraj.

¶9

(b) Case Crime No.175 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 307, 332, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and 83 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj.

¶10

(c) Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 307, 332, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and 83 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj which are registered against the same incident in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 11.06.2022."

¶11

It is submitted that regarding the same incidents, three first information reports have been lodged which is against the provisions of law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 to submit that there can be no second first information report in respect of the same cognizable offence, same incident or occurrence.

¶12

Per contra, learned State Law Officer submitted that in the present case, first information reports have been lodged in different police stations where the accused persons are different and numbers of accused are also different. It is further submitted that certain accused persons have also been chargesheeted in all the FIRs. Submission is therefore that the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) would not be applicable in the present case as it is not case of second FIR in respect of the same incident but there are different FIRs relating to different locality by different persons out of which large numbers of such persons have been chargesheeted. It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated against the petitioner therefore, he could not be in a position to get benefit when he is absconding.

¶13

We find substance in the arguments of learned State Law Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dislodge the arguments. In view thereof, we find that the ratio of the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) would not be applicable in the present case and the petition is devoid of merits.

¶14

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Vivek Kr.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arafat Alam v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arafat Alam v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Deepu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sarvar Alam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ayaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shama @ Kajal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinay Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others