9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the informant must be heard as a necessary party before deciding a writ petition by an accused under Article 226 for quashing an F.I.R. 2. Whether a writ petition can be finally disposed of at the admission stage with a stay of arrest without inviting a counter-affidavit from the informant and the investigating agency. 3. Which of the two conflicting Division Bench decisions lays down the correct law regarding the stay of arrest when a cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Informant as a Necessary Party: The court examined whether the informant should be made a party in writ proceedings seeking the quashing of an F.I.R. The court noted that the informant retains a right to pursue the investigation and to know the outcome, as established in the case of *Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police*. The court held that the informant should be given an opportunity to be heard before any final order is passed in such writ petitions. This ensures the informant's right to effective and fair investigation and aligns with the principle that a person who may be adversely affected by a judgment should be made a respondent. Therefore, the court answered in the affirmative that the informant must be heard as a necessary party. 2. Disposal of Writ Petition at Admission Stage: The court addressed whether a writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage with a stay of arrest without inviting a counter-affidavit. It emphasized that the investigation and submission of the report are statutory functions of the police, and the investigating agency should be given an opportunity to present its findings. The court referred to the Rules of the Court and noted that while the court has the discretion to dispose of a writ petition on the first hearing if all parties are represented, it is essential to direct the investigating agency to file a counter-affidavit in cases where the petition prima facie satisfies the exercise of extraordinary power. Thus, the court held that it is necessary to invite a counter-affidavit from the investigating agency before passing final orders, answering the question in the affirmative. 3. Correct Law on Stay of Arrest: The court examined two conflicting Division Bench decisions: *Shamsul Islam alias Afroz v. State of U.P.* and *Mahesh Yadav v. State of U.P.*. In *Shamsul Islam*, the court held that no direction for staying the arrest of the accused could be issued if the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence. In contrast, *Mahesh Yadav* granted a stay of arrest until the submission of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. The court reaffirmed the principle that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest cases. It concluded that the decision in *Shamsul Islam* lays down the correct law, emphasizing that interim relief should not be granted solely to circumvent the provisions of the Code. The court noted that any interim relief must be ancillary to the main relief sought. Therefore, the court held that the decision in *Shamsul Islam* is correct, and the third question was answered accordingly. Conclusion: The court concluded that the informant must be heard as a necessary party in writ petitions seeking the quashing of an F.I.R. It is necessary to invite a counter-affidavit from the investigating agency before passing final orders. The decision in *Shamsul Islam* was upheld as laying down the correct law regarding the stay of arrest when a cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R.
|
