SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Raj Kumar Saroj - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 414 of 2024
Decided On : 30-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Singh,Mukesh Sharma
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court emphasized that the procedure for proceeding against a police officer under Section 29 of the Police Act must be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and related regulations, and the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge himself.

Headnote:

U.P. Police Act - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Section 29 of the U.P. Police Act - Regulation 484 and 486 of the Police Regulations

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an In-charge Inspector, was punished under Section 29 of the U.P. Police Act and an FIR was lodged against him under Section 406 I.P.C. for not complying with the court's directions. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and the punishment was illegal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Magistrate's charge against the petitioner for breach of duty was based on not complying with a lawful order. However, the court held that the Magistrate's procedure was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 and the related regulations. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Compliance with lawful order, Validity of punishment under U.P. Police Act and Section 406 I.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate's procedure to proceed against the petitioner was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 and related regulations, indicating that the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge himself.

Final Decision: The order punishing the petitioner under Section 29 of the U.P. Police Act and lodging an FIR against him under Section 406 I.P.C. was set aside, leaving it open to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with the provisions as indicated above in the event such powers can be invoked on the facts of the present case. The writ petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as perused the record.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India has been filed with following relief:-

    “Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.554/2023 (State Vs. S.H.O. Mankapur, Gonda) by the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.3, Gonda.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.05.2015, police of Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda recovered a Truck bearing Registration No. UP-32-A-9016 and an F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. Nil/2015, under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 487 I.P.C. at Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda, which was later on converted to Case Crime No.0999/2015.

4. He further submits that thereafter the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted before the learned court below. He further submits that during trial on 23.08.2023, the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gonda issued an order in Session Trial No.216 of 2018 directing the S.H.O. Kotwali Mankapur, Gonda to get the physical verification report of the case property i.e. Truck (Registration No. UP-32-A-9016). Thereafter, the S.H.O. Mankapur, Gonda sent a letter to the Regional Transport Officer, District Gonda for physical verification of the aforesaid truck. On 30.08.2023, the In-charge Inspector (S.H.O.), Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda submitted an application for extension of time for physical verification of the aforesaid truck.

5. He further submits that on 30.08.2023, the learned trial court issued a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda directing him to take action against the S.H.O. Mankapur, Gonda and also to submit the physical verification report before the trial court. Thereafter, on 01.09.2023, the A.R.T.O., Gonda completed the physical verification of the truck and submitted its report to the S.H.O. Mankapur, Gonda, which was submitted by him before the learned trial court on 12.09.2023.

6. He further submits that on 26.09.2023, the learned trial court passed an order directing the office to register Misc. Case against the In-charge/S.H.O., Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda. Thereafter, on 03.10.2023, the learned trial court issued notice to the S.H.O. Mankapur to submit his explanation to the notice issued by opposite party no.2 personally on 10.10.2023. Further, on 10.10.2023, the then In-charge Inspector (S.H.O.), Police Station Mankapur, Gonda/petitioner submitted his report before the learned trial court stating therein that on 10.10.2023, he has taken charge of Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

7. He further submits that on 11.10.2023, the opposite party no.2 issued a notice to the then In-charge Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Mankapur, Gonda to submit his explanation before the learned trial court personally on 19.10.2023. Thereafter, on 19.10.2023, the learned trial court issued a notice to the Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat directing him to produce the then S.H.O. Mankapur, District Gonda, namely, Sudhir Kumar Singh for evidence on 30.10.2023 in Misc. Case No.554 of 2023. However, the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat vide letter No. RI-Report/2023 dated 06.11.2023 informed the opposite party no.2 that Inspector Sudhir Kumar Singh has not reported in the District Baghpat till 06.11.2023. Thereafter, on 15.11.2023, the opposite party no.2 issued Non Bailable Warrant against the then S.H.O. Mankapur, namely, Sudhir Kumar Singh and directed the In-charge Inspector/S.H.O., Mankapur, Gonda to produce the accused on 30.11.2023. Thereafter, on 30.11.2023, the learned trial court issued notice to the petitioner for his evidence in Misc. Case No.554/2023.

8. He further submit

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top