1996 (4) TMI 527 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR)
2. Stay of arrest
3. Maintainability of petitions for quashing FIR and stay of arrest
4. Powers of the police in investigation and arrest
5. Rights of the accused during investigation and arrest
6. Role of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR):
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 15-12-1995, which gave rise to crime No. 621-A under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the IPC. The court examined whether such petitions are maintainable and referred to the Supreme Court's observations in *State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri*, emphasizing that quashing an FIR at the threshold is generally discouraged. The court noted that the FIR initiates the process of investigation, and stopping it prematurely would hinder the collection of facts and the due process of law. The court concluded that the High Court should not assume the role of a trial court and quash FIRs except in rare cases where no offense is disclosed.

2. Stay of Arrest:
The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to prevent his arrest in connection with the FIR. The court discussed the vast powers given to police officers under Section 41 of the Cr. P.C. to arrest without a warrant based on credible information or reasonable suspicion. The court emphasized that the police must be allowed to investigate and arrest suspects to maintain social order and justice. The court concluded that preventing arrest at the initial stage would obstruct the investigation process.

3. Maintainability of Petitions for Quashing FIR and Stay of Arrest:
The court addressed the legal aspect of the maintainability of petitions for quashing FIRs and staying arrests. It referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including *State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri* and *Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill*, which established that the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The court reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation process and should allow the police to collect facts and evidence.

4. Powers of the Police in Investigation and Arrest:
The court elaborated on the powers of the police under Sections 154, 157, and 41 of the Cr. P.C. to investigate and arrest suspects. It highlighted the procedural safeguards in place, such as producing the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours and the maximum period of remand under Section 167 Cr. P.C. The court emphasized that the police must be allowed to perform their duties without undue interference to ensure justice and social order.

5. Rights of the Accused during Investigation and Arrest:
The court discussed the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards provided under the Cr. P.C. and the Supreme Court's guidelines in *Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.*. These include the right to inform a friend or relative about the arrest, the right to be informed of this right by the police, and the requirement for the police to record the reasons for the arrest in the case diary. The court stressed the importance of protecting the rights of the accused while balancing the interests of society.

6. Role of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court examined the scope of the High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain petitions for bail and quashing FIRs. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations in *Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab* and *State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammad*, which established that the High Court has plenary jurisdiction to entertain such petitions in extreme cases. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised with great care and circumspection, keeping the larger interest of society in mind.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the present case did not warrant the exercise of its discretion to grant relief. The petition for quashing the FIR and staying the arrest was declined, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.