IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 in the district of Pratapgarh and the requirement of valid permission for public access to sensitive police line premises.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri Piyush Singh, learned A.G.A. Shri Shivendra Singh Rathaur, learned State Law Officer.

2. In pursuance of earlier order dated 12.12.2023, Shri Satyapal Antil, Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is also present before this Court.

3. Present application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 22.01.2021 passed by C.J.M. Pratapgarh and charge sheet dated 15.03.2020 in Case Crime No. 1019 of 2019 U/s 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-Pratapgarh as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2186 of 2021, State vs. Israr Ahmad and Others.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned proceeding was initiated on the basis of concocted facts and the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner under Sections 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, ( for short “Act 1932”). He further submitted that provisions of Act, 1932 are not applicable in district Pratapgarh as there is no notification related to the implementation of the aforesaid Act. He further submitted that no sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing of the aforesaid charge sheet for the offence under Section 153B I.P.C. which is mandatory, on which the trial court has taken cognizance without considering this fact that neither the sanction was obtained from the Competent Authority nor the provisions of Act, 1932 are applicable in the district in question. He vehemently submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged by the informant, namely, Shri Shailendra Singh, Reserved Inspector, Police Line, P.S. Kotwali City, District-Pratapgarh on 29.11.2019 at 22:13 hours with the allegation that on 29.11.2019, at about 12:00 Noon, when he was working as Reserved Inspector, Police Line, Pratapgarh and was doing his day-to-day work in his office and adequate police security was deployed at the main gate of the police line as well as at different picket points in the police line and there was standing order that no any private person would be allowed to enter into the police line without adequate permission. However, on the said date, Israr Ahmad S/o Hassan Mohammad, R/o Sarauli, P.S. Khohandaur, District- Pratapgarh, Jafrul Hassan, R/o Dahilamau, P.S. Kotwali City, District-Pratapgarh, Sujjat Ulla, S/o Mobeen, R/o Rajapur, Mufreed, P.S. Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh, all leaders of the AIMIM Party, as well as other active members of aforesaid party forcibly tried to enter into the police line, when the guard tried to stop them and the information was also flashed, the informant along with his companion officer Major Prem Narayan Mishra and other police personnel immediately came to the main gate, but the aforesaid persons and some unknown persons tried to start skirmish with the police personnel and while interrupting in the duty of police personnel and forcibly entered into the police line campus by saying that they are the members of Islamic Organization, namely AIMIM and they would perform Namaz in the Mosque situated in the premises of the police line. Thereafter, extra force was deployed then all the aforesaid persons went away.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the course of investigation, statements of informant as well as other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who are police personnel. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932, a report must be submitted by the officer-in-charge of a police station, but in the present case, the Officer, who submitted the po