ASHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. In the present case, the petitioner wanted to get an order of quashing the F. I. R. dated 10th October, 2005 lodged as Case Crime No. 374 of 2005, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Sikarara, District Jaunpur. We are not inclined to do so because of various reasons reflected from the writ petition and other materials. We do not want to express our view to pass such negative order because the same may ultimately affect the investigation and trial,if any.

(2.) WE have special justice delivery system in our State under the writ jurisdiction in connection with the criminal and quasi criminal matters. There is a reason behind introduction of such jurisdiction. No provision of anticipatory bail is available in this State. Therefore, in discharging judicial function in this judgment this Court not only consider the ratio of the judgment reported in 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , whereunder the Supreme Court framed certain guidelines in respect of quashing the F. I. R. in exercise of extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also ratio of the other judgments relevant for the purpose other than quashing of F. I. R. In 1994 JIC 760 (SC) : 1994 (31) ACC 431, Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. & Ors. , a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows: "a person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do. "

(3.) THEREFORE, what would be the analogy?