Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1172 (ALL)

Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2003-05-14

M.C.JAIN, M.CHAUDHARY

body2003
M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2003- annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by the secretary, Government of U. P. Home (Police), Anubhag 4, Lucknow, addressed to the Director General of Police, U. P. for taking disciplinary action and also to lodge an FIR against the concerned police personnel involved in the incident of police encounter dated 14th February, 2003. ( 3 ) THE facts are that the petitioner is a Circle Officer of police. A police encounter took place on 14th February, 2003 at about 11. 30 A. M. in the jungle in village Abhirawa Pali, Police Station kacaura, District Jalaun in which three persons had received injuries and died. First information Reports were lodged and cases registered with regard to that incident. One Arvind Kumar Bhautik made an application on 6th April 2003 to sri G. S. Dinkar, M. L. A. Baberu, District banda. On the basis of the said application the latter wrote a letter to the chief Minister, requesting that appropriate legal action be taken against the concerned police officials as his relative Jagat Aaurwar was shot dead by the police and was intentionally wrongly identified as Sudhir Nishad and that the said incident was wrongly shown as police encounter. In the ultimate result, some enquiry was conducted by commissioner of Jhansi Division, who submitted a report, finding certain police personnel including the petitioner to be negligent in duty with regard to the identification of the third dead person, namely, Jagat Ahirwar. As the said letter (Annexure 1) has been issued to the director General of Police, Lucknow by the Secretary of Government of U. P. Home (Police), the petitioner challenges the same and contends that the same is arbitrary and is meant to harass him. It is also assailed as illegal. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned A. G. A. has countered the argument of Sri chaturvedi, urging that there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in the order in question and the unwarranted attempt of the petitioner is simply preempt the lodging of the F. I. R. against him and consequent investigation. It is also assailed as illegal. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned A. G. A. has countered the argument of Sri chaturvedi, urging that there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in the order in question and the unwarranted attempt of the petitioner is simply preempt the lodging of the F. I. R. against him and consequent investigation. ( 5 ) IT was held by Privy Council long back in the case of Emperor Vs. Khyaja nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 that it is of utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of inquiry. There is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judiciary. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary and not overlapping. ( 6 ) WE may also refer to the case of state of Bihar vs. J. A. C. Saldanna, AIR 1980 SC 326 wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: "there is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with duty of keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offence to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is his duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the Investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is his duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the Investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in section 173 (8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. " ( 7 ) THE decision of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir ahmad (supra) was approved. ( 8 ) IT is well settled legal position that the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the investigation, which is in the domain of the police after the lodging of an F. I. R. concerning commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, the F. I. R. has not yet been lodged and the petitioner simply wants to stifle the first step to spark the plugs of criminal machinery by lodging of the F. I. R. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot challenge the authority of the government directing the lodging of the f. I. R. The writ petition as this stage is pre mature, misconceived and not maintainable. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is hereby dismissed. . .