Allahabad High Court
Sudarshan Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98816-DB
Reserved On:- 14.05.2024
Delivered On:- 30.05.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6349 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sudarshan Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)
1. Heard Sri Yaspal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :-
(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, call for record and quash the show cause order dated 10.02.2024 passed by respondent, Deputy District Magistrate, Kaptanganj u/s 111 Cr.P.C and entire proceedings initiated as Case No. 4082 of 2024 (State vs. Sudarshan Yadav) u/s 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., P.S.- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar and pending before respondent Deputy District Magistrate, Tehsil - Kaptanganj, Kushinagar.
(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct respondent State to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000/- or more in favour of petitioner for illegal jail custody of petitioner Sudarshan Yadav w.e.f. 10.02.2024 to 17.02.2024.
3. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioners was having land dispute with Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Vrindvasini and therefore on 09.02.2024 the Sub-Inspector, P.S.- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar challaned him under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C and arrested and produced them before Sub District Magistrate, Kaptanganj who send him to jail on 10.02.2024 and they were only released on 02.03.2024.
4. This fact has been admitted in paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A on behalf of State-respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 116 Cr.P.C contemplates that a police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. It further provided that no such person can be detained in custody for period of exceeding 24 hours unless his further detention is required or authorised under other provision of the court or any other law for time being inforce. It has further been submitted that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C does not contemplates arrest of the person likely to commit breach of peace or distrib public order. It only requires furnishing of bond for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. Under Section 116 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate enquires the truth of information on which the proceedings under Section 111 Cr.P.C has been initiated by giving notice to the person regarding whom order under Section 111 Cr.P.C has been passed. The detention of a person can only be made in case he fails to execute bond as per Section 107 Cr.P.C.
6. In the counter affidavit, no justification has been made as to why the petitioners were kept behind bars and were only released on 02.03.2024 in violation of legal provisions noted above.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 08.04.2024 of this court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4252 of 2022, Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State of U.P. and Others, in this regard wherein this court has directed payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for illegal detention to the petitioner and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
8. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4252 of 2022. The impugned show cause notice dated 10.02.2024 issued by Deputy District Magistrate, Kaptanganj under Section 111 Cr.P.C and entire proceedings initiated as Case No. 4082 of 024 (State vs. Sudarshan Yadav) u/s 151,107,116 Cr.P.C., P.S.- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar and pending before respondent Deputy District Magistrate, Teshil- Kaptanganj, Kushinagar is hereby quashed.
9. The orders impugned in this petition are hereby quashed. Costs of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation costs of 10,000/- shall payable by the state government to the petitioner within period of six weeks.
10. The compliance report shall be sent to the Registrar (Compliance) of this court by the state of Government to be kept on record of this case.
11. The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 30.05.2024
Rohit
