Delay in lodging an FIR does not necessarily indicate political malice and cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the accused.

AMAR SARAN AND S. K. JAIN, JJ.

This petition has been filed for quashing an F. I. R. and staying the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 139 of 2007 under sections 147,148,364,394,323,504,506 and 34 IPC read with 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Kareli, district Allahabad lodged by one Mohd. Sadiq.

2. The allegations in the F. I. R. were that the petitioner, who was S. O. Kareli came along with S. O. Abdul Sattar to the house of the informants sala Ejaz on 20. 2. 2006 at about 8-9 p. m. when the informant was present there in connection with the circumcision ceremony of his salas son. The two S. O. s then conducted a fruitless search for unlicensed weapons in that house in spite of protests by the informant and then they forced him to accompany them outside saying that they wanted to talk to him. They then pushed the informant into a waiting Scorpio vehicle in which the other named accused Aftab, Mahtab, Maqbool, Farmood and Kadir were present with arms. The said named accused then took the informant to the house of Ainuddin hurling abuses and administering a beating to him on the way. M. P. Atiq Ahmad, Raju Lambu, Nausare and Mustav, Eklakh Ahmad alias Kalloo and Guddu were present there. They were all carrying arms. Atiq Ahmad ordered the others to conduct a search of the informant for making sure that he was not carrying a tape recorder. Thereafter Raju Lambu searched him and took out Rs. 5,300/- and a card issued by the Election Commission from his pocket and showed it to Atiq. The M. P. asked them to give him the card, saying that this would prevent the informant from casting his vote in favour of the B. S. P. and that the money should be distributed amongst the others present. He gave two slaps to the informant and asked the others to beat him. Then Atiq asked them to stop and warned the informant that when even the dead body of Rajua, M. L. A. was not found, then how could he muster courage to oppose him and that he would eliminate his entire family. The informant got frightened that if the police personnel could pick him from his house and hand him over to the M. P. , then they could easily get him and his family murdered. It was in view of this pressure that he had agreed to depose in the Court as directed by the M. P. because under the S. P. Government, he was finding himself and his family unsafe. Now he was in a position to disclose the true version to the C. B. I and the administration and that if any untoward incident happened with him or his family, M. P. Atiq Ahmad and his people would be responsible.

3. It should be noted that the writ petition of the similarly placed co-accused S. O. Abdul Sattar has already been dismissed by a Bench of Honble S. Rafat Alam and Honble V. D. Chaturvedi, JJ. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12984 of 2007 by an order dated 30. 8. 2007 on the ground that the impugned F. I. R. prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue, that S. O. Abdul Sattar was S. O. Soraon, which was 30 kms away hence his presence at the spot could be questionable. However so far as the petitioner being the S. O. of the police station of the area, Kareli there was nothing suspicious in his presence at the spot as the informant was also a history sheeter. Contrary to this it was also written in the supplementary affidavit to the petition that on the date of incident he was busy in his official duties at the P. S. and that it was unlikely that he would help in picking up the informant from the circumcision ceremony which was a public function and that in any case that was too petty a job for an officer of his level to perform. The credibility or otherwise of this version is a matter to be appreciated during investigation and trial and presently we see no significant distinction in the petitioners case from the case of S. O. Abdul Sattar which was dismissed as above mentioned.

4. It was next argued by the petitioners Counsel that as per th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document