Atul Kumar Mishra And Another vs Vinod Yadav, Station Officer
2016 Latest Caselaw 1876 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2143 of 2016
 
Applicant :- Atul Kumar Mishra And Another
 
Opposite Party :- Vinod Yadav, Station Officer
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakant Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

The contempt application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the Writ Court's order 4.5.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10781 of 2015, by which, the investigating officer was permitted to continue investigation of case crime no. 280 of 2014 though it was provided that the petitioners would not be arrested till credible evidence is available against them and till police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, whichever is earlier.

From the record, it appears that by Parcha dated 28.3.2016, the investigating officer concluded that credible evidence has been collected against the applicants and, therefore, the applicants need to be subjected to coercive process as they were absconding.

On the basis of the said parcha, an application was moved before the Magistrate concerned for taking coercive steps against the applicants. It further transpires that by order dated 6.4.2016, the Magistrate concerned left it open to the investigating officer to proceed in accordance with direction given by the Writ Court.

The grievance of the applicants is that since it is not mandatory to effect the arrest of the petitioners till a charge sheet is produced before the court, there is no necessity for the arrest and, therefore, by moving the application before the court concerned, the investigating officer has in effect tried to overreach the direction given by the Writ Court.

The aforesaid contention is misconceived because this Court itself had left open to the investigating officer to effect arrest, if credible evidence is available against the accused or upon submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier. As the investigating officer has concluded that credible evidence has been collected against the accused and he has also moved an application before the Magistrate concerned, who has left it open to the investigating officer to use his discretion as was left open for him to exercise by the order dated 4.5.2015, it cannot be said that by proceeding to take coercive action against the applicants, the investigating officer has wilfully flouted the direction given by the Writ Court.

The contempt application is dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.4.2016

Arvind