Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Naseem vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 December, 2020
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 23007 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohammad Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.& Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report dated 11.11.2020 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0414 of 2020, under Section 3 Explosives Substance Act, 1908, Sections 4, 5 and 9-B of Explosives Act, 1984, related to P.S.Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the allegations made in the impugned FIR there is no explosion caused as such Section 3 Explosives Substance Act, 1908 would not be attracted. It is further submitted that Sections 4 and 5 of Explosives Act, 1884 are the definition clause and the power of Central Government to make rules, whereas under Section 9-B of Explosives Act maximum punishment prescribed is up to three years.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the opposite parties does not dispute that there is no allegation of explosion caused in the impugned FIR. It is submitted that in case during investigation it is found that no explosion was caused Section 3 Explosives Substance Act, 1908 would not be attracted.
We have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records.
Prima facie we are satisfied that as per the allegations made in the impugned FIR there is no explosion caused. The punishment entail under Section 9-B of Explosives Act is up to three years.
In view of above, the investigating agency shall ensure compliance of provisions of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the investigating officer is duty bound to comply with the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
The writ petition, as such, is disposed of with observation that the opposite parties shall follow the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in true letter and spirit while making investigation.
Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Ram.