The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR, lodged against a relative of the Bahraich violence victim Ram Gopal Mishra, Nagar Adhyaksh of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Bahraich and others.
The Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Pundrik Kumar Pandey Alias Pundrik Pandey.
It is the case of the petitioner-Pundrik Kumar Pandey @ Pundrik Pandey, that the Opposite party no 4, the sitting MLA has been representing Mahasi Constituency for the past 15 years and the applicant-Pundrik Kumar Pandey @ Pundrik Pandey, was earlier working as a Journalist and he used to write against the Opposite party no 4, as a result whereof the Opposite party no 4 became inimical to the petitioner.
The petitioner is currently posted as a Teacher in Government Primary School, UPS Chaugoi, Block-Jamuha, District Shravasti, and the deceased Ram Gopal Mishra was the cousin brother-in-law of the petitioner and for this reason, the petitioner went along with the dead body of Ram Gopal Mishra to the Dharna site near the Medical College. He wanted to only accompany the body when it was being taken for post-mortem.
However, more than 5000 people had gathered near the dead body and they were protesting. Since Opposite party no 4 is an influential person he has engineered the lodging of the impugned FIR to settle his personal grudge against the petitioner under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 109(1), 324(2), 351(3), 352 & 125 of the BNS.
The FIR was lodged after eight days of the incident and it was premeditated and delayed and lodged after much deliberation. The petitioner has a gun license and the Respondent no.4 wants to get such license cancelled, therefore, a false allegation has been made in the FIR that a shot was fired in air.
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/ petitioners namely Arpit Srivastava, Anuj Kumar Singh @ Anuj Singh Raikwar, Shubham Kumar @ Shubham Mishra in Criminal Misc Writ Petition regarding challenge being raised to the same FIR has argued before the Court that the Opposite party no 4, sitting MLA of Mahasi Constituency had lodged the FIR on 18.10.2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 109(1), 324(2), 351(3), 352 & 125 of the B.N.S 2023 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, against seven named accused persons namely Arpit Srivastava, Anuj Kumar Singh @ Anuj Singh Raikwar, Shubham Kumar @ Shubham Mishra, Kushmendra Chaudhary, Manish Chandra Shukla, Pundarik Pandey and Subhanshu Singh Rana and some unknown persons in relation to an alleged incident that took place on 13.10.2024. In the FIR, the allegation was that the petitioners as well as other co accused along with several other persons had made it difficult for the Police and the District Administration in getting the dead body of Ram Gopal Mishra to the mortuary and created a ruckus which led to firing of a gun shot in the air and also of smashing of the windscreen of vehicle of the Respondent no 4.
It has been submitted that the impugned FIR is the second in connection with the same incident as Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Inspector Incharge of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, had earlier lodged FIR on 15.10.2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 190, 131, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 326(g), 326(f), 3(5), 121(1) of the B.N.S 2023 & Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 at 09:11 AM at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, wherein similar facts have been mentioned.
It has been submitted that the Petitioner no 1 is a social worker and Nagar Adhyaksh of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Bahraich since 16.09.2021, and he is pursuing his career in politics.
Petitioner no 2 is also a social worker and a farmer and Petitioner no 3 is a Graduate and presently working in a private Construction Company. The impugned FIR being the second FIR for the same incident ought to be quashed in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai Vs State of Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254.
The Court have gone through the alleged first FIR regarding the same incident which was lodged by one Dinesh Kumar Pandey, the Station House Officer Incharge of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich i.e. FIR lodged at 09:11 am on 15.10.2024 it relates to the incident that occurred at 07:00 pm on 13.10.2024 when the idols of Devi Durga were being taken for immersion after conclusion of Navratri celebrations and the said procession was attacked by members of a particular community as a result whereof one person was shot dead namely Ram Gopal Mishra which resulted in heavy stone pelting and communal disharmony.
The procession which was taking the idols for immersion was stopped and some anti-social elements also incited the members of the general public to abuse and assault public servants /employees and prevent them from carrying out their public duties. The road was blockaded and stone pelting continued unabated. Also an attack was made by Lathi/Danda near one T crossing by the name of Peepal Tiraha and Steelganj market.
Reference was made to certain persons belonging to the other community whose names were also mentioned in the said FIR, whose shops were attacked and vandalized and one motorcycle was also set on fire. This FIR talks of some anti-social elements vandalizing public property as well as private property of the other community and creating an atmosphere of social disharmony. Reference was made to such unlawful activity being carried out in several neighbourhoods names of which have been given in the said FIR.
The Court noted that,
On the other hand, the FIR that was lodged on 18.10.2024 at 05:11 pm registered as Case by the Respondent no 4 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 109(1), 324(2), 351(3), 352 & 125 of the B.N.S at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, against seven named accused including the petitioners herein has made mention of a specific incident with regard to the dead body of one Ram Gopal Mishra being kept outside the gate of Bahraich Medical College and the crowd raising slogans and protesting the attempt being made by the District Administration and the Police Authorities as well as the CMO from taking the body for autopsy to the Mortuary.
The seven named accused were part of a larger group of persons and mention has been made regarding the attempt being made by informant who is a public representative in trying to pacify the members of the crowd and in trying to explain to them the necessity of getting the post mortem done of the deceased-victim and also help being sought from the District Magistrate in this regard.
The Court further noted that,
Despite attempt being made by the District Magistrate and the sitting MLA to pacify the crowd, and to take the body of the deceased-victim to the Mortuary, the crowd continued stone pelting which resulted in the smashing of the wind screen of one Car registration number of which has been mentioned in the FIR and firing of one gun shot in the air. This incident happened between 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm at night on 13.10.2024 and the informant has also referred to evidence being made available in CCTV footage if it is examined by the police during the investigation.
The initial FIR that was lodged on 15.10.2024 by the police official concerned related to a general information regarding the incident which happened during the immersion procession of Devi Durga idols where one person was shot as a result whereof crowd got angry and destroyed the shops of the other community through stone-pelting and setting them on fire whereas the FIR that was lodged on 18.10.2024 at 05:11 pm by the public representative, the sitting MLA of Mahasi Constituency with regard to the incident where the named accused along with others were holding Dharna Pradarshan with the body of the deceased-victim and not letting the District Administration and the Police Authorities from carrying out their public duties regarding the autopsy of the deceased-victim by taking his body to the mortuary for post mortem examination. There was firing of gunshots in the air also.
“Prima facie, we do not find that the second FIR which was lodged on 18.10.2024 and which has been challenged in these petitions to be a part of the same transaction. It is related to a subsequent development and the Section of the B.N.S invoked in the same are not identical and do not relate to the same incident or the same accused. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to show interference, as prayed for, in these petitions,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.