Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1464 (ALL)

Nitin Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-05-26

MANISH KUMAR, RAJAN ROY

body2023
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi along with Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition was filed on 12.01.2023 seeking the following relief:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commissioner of Police (opposite party No.3) to restore the security cover which was provided to the petitioner by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 11.08.2022 (as contained in Annexure No. 1)." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a Contractor in a Construction Company and has been so for quite sometime, at least since 2011, although, the Company has changed from time to time. He was granted security cover under the interim order dated 15.11.2011 of this Court passed in an earlier writ petition filed by him bearing Writ Petition No. 10096 (M/B) of 2011; Nitin Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. The said writ petition was decided on 31.07.2019. On a perusal of the said judgement shows that after passing of the interim order dated 15.11.2011, security was granted to him, but, inspite of the order dated 15.11.2011 the said case was never listed for almost 8 years. It was listed only on 23.05.2019 when the case was adjourned as the petitioner's counsel was not available. Thereafter, it was listed on 24.05.2019 when it was again adjourned at the behest of the petitioner. On 18.07.2019 when the case was listed for hearing the file was not forwarded to the Court whereupon the Court asked the Deputy Registrar, Miscellaneous Bench Section to submit an explanation as the petitioner was enjoying fruits of interim direction by way of grant of security cover but the file was not sent. In pursuance to the said order on an inquiry conducted it was found that certain officials were found hand in glove in misplacing the file. In pursuance to the said order on an inquiry conducted it was found that certain officials were found hand in glove in misplacing the file. In the statement of one Manoj Kumar, Clerk to an Advocate practicing in High Court he admitted to his guilt that he was asked to put away file on the request of counsel whose name is mentioned in his confession as also in the judgement dated 31.07.2019 and that he had put the file under a rack so that it could not be found when he visited MB Section, that he had been instructed by a counsel that the file should not reach the Court. The Court took serious note of the aforesaid facts in its judgement dated 31.07.2019 and ordered investigation apart from other directions therein, in pursuance to which an F.I.R. was lodged and it appears that charge sheet was also filed on 07.07.2020 against the petitioner and others and summoning order was passed on 10.08.2020, however, as per the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner the said summoning order dated 10.08.2020 and charge sheet dated 07.07.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 461 of 2019 under Sections 380, 411, 34 and 120B IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 76159 of 2019 which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow were quashed by this Court vide judgement dated 22.07.2022 passed in Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1503 of 2022; Nitin Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. 4. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner continued to enjoy the security granted to him. 5. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, they relate to period after 2020. While the security cover granted to the petitioner was still continuing the Commissionerate Level Security Committee considered the threat perception to the petitioner in its meeting dated 05.12.2021. It took into consideration a Criminal Case No. 479 of 2017, under Section 420/467/468/471/406/506 IPC, Police Station - Kasna, District - Gautambhudh Nagar filed by the petitioner against one Raj Kumar wherein charge sheet had been filed and the accused was on bail. It took into consideration a Criminal Case No. 479 of 2017, under Section 420/467/468/471/406/506 IPC, Police Station - Kasna, District - Gautambhudh Nagar filed by the petitioner against one Raj Kumar wherein charge sheet had been filed and the accused was on bail. The Committee in its wisdom opined that on account of it there was a threat to the life of the petitioner and accordingly recommended the grant of one security personnel to the petitioner on payment of 10% charges. The sections in which the F.I.R. was lodged was itself indicates that the alleged offence was not a heinous one but one which related to cheating, criminal intimidation etc. Nevertheless, this recommendation of the Commissionrate Level Security Committee was forwarded to the High Powered Committee at the State Level as the period of security cover available to the petitioner was beyond six months in view of the background already mentioned earlier and the High Powered Committee accepted the recommendation and granted security cover to the petitioner for six months. The said decision of the High Powered Committee was communication to the District Officials on 05.01.2022. On 23.05.2022 the High Powered Committee extended the security cover. 6. Thereafter, an order dated 23.05.2022 was issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of U.P. to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow referring to the earlier Government Order dated 05.01.2022 and the recommendation of the State Ministers Parliamentary Affairs, Medical Education, Medical Health, Family Welfare and Women and Child Welfare, Department, Govt. of U.P. dated 12.04.2022 for extending the security granted to the petitioner on payment of 10% charges and accordingly, in anticipation of next meeting of the High Powered Committee, the petitioner's security was extended. While extending the security the Police Commissioner was required to assess the threat perception and send his report in this regard on 20 point proforma. 7. The Commissionerate Level Security Committee then assessed threat perception to the petitioner in its meeting dated 17.06.2022 and taking into consideration the sole criminal case lodged by him as already mentioned here in above, again recommended the grant of security as earlier on payment of 10% charges. The said recommendation was considered by the High Powered Committee in its meeting dated 29.07.2022 and was accepted. Accordingly, the security cover granted to the petitioner was extended for six months. This decision dated 29.07.2022 was communicated to the concerned on 11.08.2022. 8. The said recommendation was considered by the High Powered Committee in its meeting dated 29.07.2022 and was accepted. Accordingly, the security cover granted to the petitioner was extended for six months. This decision dated 29.07.2022 was communicated to the concerned on 11.08.2022. 8. On 23.12.2022 Netrapal Singh, the Head Constable Armed Police No. 588, who was assigned to the petitioner for his security, submitted an application that the petitioner takes him outside the State and on being advised not to do so creates pressure on him to go along with him on account of which he was finding it difficult to perform his duty with him. He requested for change his duty. Thereafter, on 24.12.2022 he again submitted an application to the Reserve Police Inspector, Police Line, Lucknow that he had been assigned security duty with the petitioner a businessman who ill-treats and abuses him. It was also alleged that he asked the applicant to act against the rules and when the applicant refused, then, he threatened him that he will ensure that he looses his uniform, on account of which he was under grave mental and physical strain, therefore, he should be directed to return back to the Police Line and should be assigned some other duty. The contention of petitioner's counsel is that the second letter dated 24.12.2022 was a tutored one on the advise of the Reserve Police Inspector as there was no such allegations in the first letter dated 23.12.2022. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Intelligence and Security, Lucknow in the Office of the Police Commissioner, Lucknow wrote to the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of U.P. on 26.12.2022 apprising him about the aforesaid letters of Shri Netrapal Singh, Head Constable and that an entry in the G.D. had been made to this effect on 23.012.2022 and 24.12.2022. It was stated in the said communication that in view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 09.05.2014 considering the misuse by the petitioner of the security provided to him the same had been withdrawn on 24.12.2022. It was stated in the said communication that in view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 09.05.2014 considering the misuse by the petitioner of the security provided to him the same had been withdrawn on 24.12.2022. It is the admitted case of the State Officials that there no such order dated 24.12.2022 was passed, therefore, obviously the security was simply withdrawn on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Intelligence and Security, Lucknow without there being any order either by the Commissionerate Lever Security Committee or High Powered Committee and to this extent we feel that the aforesaid Officer erred specially in a matter involving threat to life where the opposite parties themselves had assessed the threat perception earlier, although, we are also of the opinion that the extension of such security was on account of political interference and the original record which we have seen shows that there was more to it than what meets the eyes. 10. Be that as it may, the appropriate course in such an eventuality was to contact the petitioner by giving him notice and apprising him of the aforesaid facts and if he did not offer any explanation or persisted with violations of the rules, then, the matter should have been referred to the Commissionerate Level Security Committee and/or the High Powered Committee and with permission of Higher Officials the security cover should have been withdrawn. In a given case of gross violation of guidelines security cover could be withdrawn by the orders of the Police Commissioner, Lucknow also but only in exceptional cases, but, this procedure was not followed and straightway without any decision by the Police Commissioner, Lucknow or the Commissionerate Level Security Committee or the High Powered Committee the security cover was withdrawn. This led to filing of this writ petition on 12.01.2023. 11. On 30.12.2022 the Commissionerate Level Security Committee was convened to assess the threat perception to the life of the petitioner and the Committee assessed that there was no genuine threat to the life of the petitioner and in this process it took into a consideration complaints of Shri Netrapal Singh. This recommendation remained pending till 11.04.2023 when it was considered by the High Powered Committee which was convened by notice dated 07.04.2023 and was accepted. On 26.04.2023 the decision of the High Powered Committee dated 11.04.2023 has been communicated. 12. This recommendation remained pending till 11.04.2023 when it was considered by the High Powered Committee which was convened by notice dated 07.04.2023 and was accepted. On 26.04.2023 the decision of the High Powered Committee dated 11.04.2023 has been communicated. 12. We may point out that in the interregnum we had passed several interim orders and we had also pointed out the deficiency on the part of opposite parties in withdrawing the security cover of the petitioner on 24.12.2022 without there being any such order for withdrawing security and it seems that only thereafter the Officials pursued the matter with the State Government resulting in the decision dated 11.04.2023. Nevertheless, assessment of threat perception is an exercise which is better left to experts. The earlier Committee which had earlier opined that there was threat perception to the life of the petitioner subsequently considering the subsequent facts found that the security cover need not be extended any further. We have already taken note of the political interference at the behest of the petitioner. We have already mentioned that there is only one case lodged by the petitioner and the sections under which the offence is alleged to have been committee, are not very heinous. The misuse of security is evident from the applications submitted by the security personnel. The earlier background in the context of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has already been dealt with by us which shows that the file wherein the interim order had been passed in favour of the petitioner was got misplaced and it is the petitioner alone who was to benefit from such misplacement. The judgement of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner itself speaks volume. The fact that the charge sheet against the petitioner has been quashed is another matter upon which we do not wish to make any comment, though, we have read the said judgement. 13. On being confronted leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is another F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, but, we do not find its mention anywhere in the records and in spite of being asked learned counsel for the petitioner did not place any such F.I.R. as to when it was lodged. 14. 13. On being confronted leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is another F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, but, we do not find its mention anywhere in the records and in spite of being asked learned counsel for the petitioner did not place any such F.I.R. as to when it was lodged. 14. Be that as it may, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, except that the manner in which security was withdrawn on 24.12.2022 was not appropriate and if repeated, it may in a given case cause threat to the life of a person, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter at the behest of the petitioner, as, the assessment of the expert Committee is that there is no genuine threat to life of the petitioner and also that he had misused the security granted to him. Though, we are not experts but from the records we can not say that there is any such material which could contradict this subsequent assessment by the said Committee. No doubt, the same Committee earlier recommended for grant of security cover, but, then we can not loose sight of the letter dt. 6.12.2022 of the Minister concerned which is on the original records produced before us and even from a reading of the earlier recommendations when the security cover was extended/granted earlier it seems that there was more to it than what meets the eyes. We say no more except that as of now there is no reason to interfere at the behest of the petitioner. 15. We, however, make it clear that the State Government and the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow shall ensure that in future security cover of any person is not withdrawn in the manner in which it was withdrawn on 24.12.2022 and proper procedure is adopted in this regard so that the life of any person is not endangered. Thankfully, the petitioner did not have to face any serious consequences on account of the above. In fact, it would be better if some specific guideline/procedure is laid down by the State Government for withdrawal of security in such eventualities as occurred in this case, for the future. 16. In view of the above discussion and subject to the observations made here in above, we dismiss this writ petition. 17. In fact, it would be better if some specific guideline/procedure is laid down by the State Government for withdrawal of security in such eventualities as occurred in this case, for the future. 16. In view of the above discussion and subject to the observations made here in above, we dismiss this writ petition. 17. The original record, which was retained by this Court, shall be returned by the Bench Secretary to Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.