The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), booked under Section 153B of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Israr Ahmad.
The application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 22.01.2021 passed by C.J.M, Pratapgarh and charge sheet dated 15.03.2020 in Case U/S 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S Kotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned proceeding was initiated on the basis of concocted facts and the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner under Sections 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
He further submitted that provisions of Act, 1932 are not applicable in district Pratapgarh as there is no notification related to the implementation of the aforesaid Act.
He further submitted that no sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing of the aforesaid charge sheet for the offence under Section 153B I.P.C, which is mandatory, on which the trial court has taken cognizance without considering this fact that neither the sanction was obtained from the Competent Authority nor the provisions of Act, 1932 are applicable in the district in question.
He vehemently submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the F.I.R of case in question was lodged by the informant, namely, Shailendra Singh, Reserved Inspector, Police Line, P.S Kotwali City, District- Pratapgarh on 29.11.2019 at 22:13 hours with the allegation that on 29.11.2019, at about 12:00 Noon, when he was working as Reserved Inspector, Police Line, Pratapgarh and was doing his day-to-day work in his office and adequate police security was deployed at the main gate of the police line as well as at different picket points in the police line and there was standing order that no any private person would be allowed to enter into the police line without adequate permission.
However, on the said date, Israr Ahmad S/o Hassan Mohammad, R/o Sarauli, P.S Khohandaur, District- Pratapgarh, Jafrul Hassan, R/o Dahilamau, P.S- Kotwali City, DistrictPratapgarh, Sujjat Ulla, S/o Mobeen, R/o Rajapur, Mufreed, P.S Kandhai, District- Pratapgarh, all leaders of the AIMIM Party, as well as other active members of aforesaid party forcibly tried to enter into the police line, when the guard tried to stop them and the information was also flashed, the informant along with his companion officer Major Prem Narayan Mishra and other police personnel immediately came to the main gate, but the aforesaid persons and some unknown persons tried to start skirmish with the police personnel and while interrupting in the duty of police personnel and forcibly entered into the police line campus by saying that they are the members of Islamic Organization, namely AIMIM and they would perform Namaz in the Mosque situated in the premises of the police line. Thereafter, extra force was deployed then all the aforesaid persons went away.
Counsel for the applicant said that during the course of investigation, statements of the informant as well as other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C who are police personnel.
He further said that as per the provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932, a report must be submitted by the officer-in-charge of a police station, but in the present case, the Officer, who submitted the police report/charge sheet, is not the officer-in-charge. He also submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Pratagparh has ordered for further investigation in the case only with the intention to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution related to the sanction.
He also said that for a long time, the people working near the police line have been offering Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus by taking necessary precautions.
He vehemently submitted that, as appropriate sanction was not obtained, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.
A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that the mosque constructed in the police line premises cannot be allowed to public for offering Namaz/prayer, for the reason that arms and ammunition of the police personnel are being stored in Armory in the police line, moreover, District Wireless Control Room is also situated there and due to several other security reasons, without appropriate permission, public at large cannot be allowed to enter in the police line campus.
“Considering the submissions of the counsel for the applicant and A.G.A, going through the contents of application, statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the pleading that by way of Gazette Notification dated 19.06.1968, the provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932 are applicable in all districts of Uttar Pradesh with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, and as the same has already been published in the Official Gazette on 19.06.1968, therefore, the ground of applicant that the provisions of Act, 1932 is not applicable in the District Pratapgarh has no legs to stand.
It is further evident from the provisions of Act, 1932 read with the provisions of Cr.P.C that the investigation of the case in question was conducted by Sub-Inspector, Chandra Shekhar Singh and prepared the report which was approved by Surendra Nath Singh, Inspector at the time of forwarding to the concerned Court.
It is also admitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Inspectors are being appointed as SHO and in the present case, the Inspector has approved the charge sheet, therefore, the ground argued by the counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet was not forwarded by the S.H.O is also irrelevant.
It is also evident from the pleading filed by the A.G.A that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh has decided for further investigation of the case in question, and he himself informed to this Court that he will take all care and precautions for further investigation of the case in question in just and fair manner.
In such circumstances, merely on the ground that the sanction was not taken by the Investigating Officer from the competent authority and submitted charge sheet to the Court concerned, on which, Court has taken cognizance, charge sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, therefore, the Court is of the view that the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Moreover, this Court is also of the view that the campus of police line is a sensitive place where Armory, District Wireless Control Room and Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, therefore, public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.