RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -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 and 506, 34, I.P.C. read with Section 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 alongwith S.O. Abdul Sattar to the house of the informant's 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 sala's son. THE two S.Os. 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.) THE next contention of the petitioner's counsel that the F.I.R. was lodged with inordinate delay after 18 months, is also not of much consequence looking to the nature of the informant's allegations of being picked up from his village with the aid of the police, and of being terrorised by the M.P. and his associates. In the circumstances described hereinabove his failure to complain to the Court in the interim period during the S.P. rule loses significance. THEre can be no presumption that every case where an F.I.R. is lodged with delay, it is a mala fide and politically motivated F.I.R. and the same must be invariably quashed and the F.I.R. stayed. THE inimitable words of Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 1 SCR 1071 at 1976 : AIR 1980 SC 319 at 321, should be recalled in this contest : "If the use of power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object, the actuation or catalisation by malice is not legicidal". Unless on a plain reading the delayed F.I.R. appears to be completely false, concocted and inherently unbelievable, no ground exists for quashing of an F.I.R. and staying the arrest on the ground of political malice. If the accused were powerful and well-connected under an earlier political set up, it would not be surprising if no criminal proceedings were initiated against them at that time, and were only initiated after the change in the political dispensation. To the same effect it was pointed out by Hon'ble Hidayatullah, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench in Krishna Ballabha Sahay v. Commission of Enquiry, (1969) 1 SCR 387 : AIR 1969 SC 258 : "THE contention that the power cannot be exercised by the succeeding ministry has been answered already by this Court in two cases. THE earlier of the two has been referred to by the High Court already. THE more recent case is P. V. Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa, (1968) 3 SCR 789 : AIR 1969 SC 215. It hardly needs any authority to state that the inquiry will be ordered not by the Minister against himself but by some one else. When a Ministry goes out of office, its successor may consider any glaring charges and may, if justified, order an inquiry. Otherwise, each Ministry will become a law unto itself and the corrupt conduct of its Ministers will remain beyond scrutiny."