Public Not Allowed Without Permission: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash Case Against AIMIM Leader For Forcible Entry In Police Line Campus To Perform Namaz
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a criminal case against Israr Ahmad, leader of AIMIM (All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen) who was involved in forcible entry to Mosque in police line campus to perform Namaz along with other AIMIM members.
The said AIMIM leader had filed an application before the Lucknow Bench for quashing the summoning order passed by CJM, Pratapgarh and chargesheet in a case under Section 332, 353, 504, 447, and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh said, “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, this Court is of the view that the present 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.”
Advocate Gyanendra Singh represented the applicant while Government Advocate V.K. Singh represented the opposite parties.
In this case, the counsel for the applicant submitted that a proceeding was initiated against the accused applicant. It was further submitted that the Trial Court took a cognizance without considering the fact that neither the sanction was obtained from the competent authority, nor the provisions of 1932 Act were applicable in the district and that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order. An FIR was lodged by the Police Inspector alleging that in 2019, when he was performing his duty as Reserved Inspector, Police Line, Pratapgarh, the accused along with all leaders of AIMIM Party as well as other active members forcibly tried to enter into the police line when the guard tried to stop them.
Adequate police security was deployed at the main gate and there was standing order that no private person would be allowed to enter the same without adequate permission. However, the said persons tried to start skirmish with the police personnel and interrupted in the duty of police personnel. They said that were the members of Islamic Organisation AIMIM and would perform Namaz in the Mosque situated in the said premises.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “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 Shri Surendra Nath Singh, Inpector at the time of forwarding to the concerned Court. It is also admitted by the learned 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 learned counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet was not forwarded by the S.H.O. is also irrelevant.”
The Court added that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh decided for further investigation of the case and he himself informed that he will take all care and precautions for further investigation of the case in just and fair manner.
It, therefore, directed SP to ensure that the further investigation of the case be completed as early as possible and to submit a report before the court concerned.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title- Israr Ahmad v. State of UP Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:11021)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Gyanendra Singh
Opposite Parties: Government Advocate V.K. Singh, AGA Piyush Singh, and State Law Officer Shivendra Singh Rathaur.
