Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by the leader of an Islamic Organization, namely All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (‘AIMIM’), under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the summoning order dated passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353, 504, 447, 153-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, (‘Act, 1932’), Rajeev Singh,J. refused to quash a criminal case against a leader of the AIMIM for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz.
The applicant submitted that the impugned proceeding was initiated based on concocted facts and the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that provisions of the Act, 1932 are not applicable in district Pratapgarh as there is no notification related to the implementation of the aforesaid Act. He also submitted that no sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing of the aforesaid charge sheet for the offence under Section 153-B IPC, 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.
The State 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 the police line campus.
The State further submitted that the Guards are being deployed at the gates of the police line and only with the permission of the guard, the persons are allowed to enter the premises. However, on the date of incident, the accused persons forcibly tried to enter the police line by raising several slogans and skirmishing police personnel. Immediately, the Guard informed to the senior officials, on which, Reserved Inspector came to the spot along with other police personnel, but the members of Islamic Organization, namely AIMIM misbehaved with them and entered the campus of the police line, challenging the police personnel that they would offer Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus, as a result, law and order was disturbed, thereafter, the extra force was called and deployed, on which, the accused persons ran away.
Analysis:
Concerning the ground of applicant that the provisions of Act, 1932 is not applicable in the District Pratapgarh, the Court said 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.
The Court further noted from the provisions of Act, 1932 read with the provisions of CrPC, that the investigation of the case in question was conducted by Sub-Inspector and prepared the report, which was approved by the Inspector at the time of forwarding to the Court concerned.
The Court also noted 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 applicant that the charge sheet was not forwarded by the SHO is also irrelevant.
The Court further noted 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, Thus, it said that 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, the charge sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law.
The Court viewed that the present application was misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Further, it viewed 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 directed the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to ensure that the further investigation of the case in question be completed as early as possible and to submit a report before the Court concerned.
[Israr Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 417, Order dated 07-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Gyanendra Singh, Advocate Ajmal Khan, Advocate Javed Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
