Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently denied quashing a case lodged against Israr Ahmad, leader of AIMIM (All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen). Ahmad, along with other AIMIM members, was accused of forced entry into a mosque on the police line campus to perform Namaz.

While denying any relief to Ahmad, the bench of Justice Rajeev Singh said, "The campus of police line is a sensitive place where Armory, District Wireless Control Room and Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, therefore, public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District".

Ahmad moved the high court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the entire proceedings in the case lodged against him at Kotwali Nagar police station in Pratapgarh district under Sections 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B of the IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The FIR was filed by Shailendra Singh who was posted as Reserved Inspector, Police Line, Kotwali City Police Station at the time of the incident. He alleged that on November 29, 2019, around noon, despite a standing order in force that no private person would be allowed to enter the police line without adequate permission, leaders of the AIMIM Party namely Israr Ahmad, Jafrul Hassan, Sujjat Ulla along with party member forcibly tried to enter into the police line.

The FIR stated that when the accused were stopped by the guard who informed them about entry restrictions, they tried to start a skirmish with the police personnel. Allegedly, while stating that they were members of an Islamic Organization, the accused insisted on performing Namaz in the Mosque situated on the premises of the police line.

Ahamad's counsel argued before the high court that the impugned proceeding was initiated on the basis of concocted facts and the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner.

He claimed that since a long time, the people working near the police line have been offering Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus.

He further submitted that provisions of Act, 1932 were not applicable in district Pratapgarh as there was no notification related to the implementation of the aforesaid Act.

Moreover, he contended that no sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing the chargesheet against Ahmad for the offence under Section 153B of the IPC, which was mandatory, on which the trial court had taken cognizance.

The application was opposed the the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) who contended that access to the police lines was limited and required permission from the guards stationed at the entry gates for entry onto the premises.

He further asserted that merely on the ground that there was no independent witness at the place of incident, charge sheet could not be quashed.

Moreover, he apprised the court that in the radius of 6km of the police line, 60 mosques were situated and it was only the mosque situated inside the police lines, where entry was not allowed to the civilians. 

Considering the submissions, going through the contents of the application, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as other relevant documents, court held that the argument of the accused persons that the provisions of Act, 1932 was not applicable in the District Pratapgarh had no legs to stand. 

Court pointed out that by way of Gazette Notification dated June 19, 1968, the provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932 were applicable in all districts of Uttar Pradesh with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.

Court also took on record the submission of the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh that he himself will take all care and precautions of further investigation in the case that it is done in a just and fair manner.

"In such circumstances, merely on the ground that the sanction was not taken by the Investigating Officer from the competent authority and submitted charge sheet to the Court concerned, on which, Court has taken cognizance, charge sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law," court held. 

Therefore, while holding the application misconceived, court dismissed it. 

It, however, directed the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to ensure that the further investigation of the case in question be completed as early as possible and a report is submitted before the court concerned

Case Title: Israr Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another