# Kamal Daniel & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-16
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 10971 of 2021
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamal-daniel-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47019
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(a) Criminal Law - Simultaneous First
Information Report - code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - Due to
technical lapses two FIRs had been registered
by the police station. The Court observed that
since the technical problem has come to be
pointed out at a nascent stage of investigation
6 All. Kamal Daniel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
203
therefore the rule of double jeopardy is not
attracted. The petitioner have not attributed any
mala fides in this regard. Moreover, the
competent court has also passed an order
continuing the two proceedings as one for
multiple offences. (Para 25)

The
discovery
of
any
material,
oral
or
documentary, after the registration of the
earliest FIR under 154 Cr.P.C. forms a part of
the investigation by virtue of Section 162 Cr.P.C.
for filling the police report or supplementary
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Thus,
rectification at the nascent stage of investigation
being exceptional in the present case is
accepted. (Para 27)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Section 12-H of the Act, 1947,
clearly provides that if a vacancy in the
office of the Pradhan arises by reason of his
death, removal, resignation, voidance of his
election or refusal to take oath of office, it
shall be filed before the expiration of six
months from the date of such vacancy, for
the remainder of the term of the Gram
Panchayat, provided that, if on the date of
occurrence of such vacancy the residue of
the term of Gram Panchayat is less that six
months, the vacancy shall not be filled. In
view of this provision, if vacancy is caused
due to voidance of election of a Pradhan
the same shall be filled for the residue of
the term of the Gram Panchayat, if it is not
less than six months on the date of
occurrence of vacancy.

17. In Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P.
and others 2017 (124) ALR 863: 2017
(136) RD 328 (Alld), this Court has held as
under:

" 4. It is noteworthy that the existing
vacancy is a casual vacancy which falls
under section 12-H of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 and has to be filled by regular
election as provided under section 11-B of
the Act. Section 12-H puts a mandate that
such vacancies shall be filled before
expiration of the period of six months from
the date of occurrence of vacancy. Further
the elected candidate would be entitled to
continue for the remainder of the term in
office of the Pradhan. The proviso to
section 12-H, however, says that in case,
the residue of the term is less than six
months such vacancy shall not be filled by
election. Section 12-J, however, provides
for making temporary arrangement by
nomination
of
a
member
of
Gram
Panchayat to discharge the duties and
exercise the powers of Pradhan until
vacancy is filled up."

18. The question framed in Paragraph
13, is answered, that, as the petitioner was
elected against casual vacancy caused due
to voidance of the election of earlier
Pradhan, the petitioner's term would not be
five years, but would be for the residue of
the term of Gram Panchayat.

19. In view of the aforesaid, the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner's term would
come to an end in the year 2024 has no
substance and is rejected. The term of the
petitioner as Pradhan came to an end with
the expiry of the term of the Gram
Panchayat.

20. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)06ILR A202
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Misc. Bench No. 10971 of 2021

Kamal Daniel & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Raghvendra Pandey, Viksit Arora

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(a) Criminal Law - Simultaneous First
Information Report - code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - Due to
technical lapses two FIRs had been registered
by the police station. The Court observed that
since the technical problem has come to be
pointed out at a nascent stage of investigation
6 All. Kamal Daniel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
203
therefore the rule of double jeopardy is not
attracted. The petitioner have not attributed any
mala fides in this regard. Moreover, the
competent court has also passed an order
continuing the two proceedings as one for
multiple offences. (Para 25)

The
discovery
of
any
material,
oral
or
documentary, after the registration of the
earliest FIR under 154 Cr.P.C. forms a part of
the investigation by virtue of Section 162 Cr.P.C.
for filling the police report or supplementary
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Thus,
rectification at the nascent stage of investigation
being exceptional in the present case is
accepted. (Para 27)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & ors. (2001) 6
SCC 181 (distinguished)

2. St.of Pun. Vs Davinder Pal Singh B156hullar
(2011) 14 SCC 770 (distinguished)

3. Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR (32)
1945 PC 18

4. St. of Hary. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC
335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Luthra,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Raghvendra Pandey, Viksit Arora and Shri
Nadeem
Murtaza
on
behalf
of
the
petitioners and Sri V.K. Shahi, learned
AAG assisted by Shri S.P. Singh, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State.

2. This writ petition has fallen in the
lap
of
this
Court
under
peculiar
circumstances. There is a folklore that a
wrongful mind breeds evil and a rightful
conduct
fountains
nothing
but
truth.
Humanity is universally subjugated to the
influence of evil and it is difficult to carve
out an exception in the modern world of
any popular civilized order that guarantees
personal liberty ideally and enforces the
human rights by adhering to the exemplary
standards. The rule of law nevertheless
must prevail to strengthen social and
economic peace.

3. The criminal administration of
justice under the Constitution of India
hinges on Article 21 read with Article 20
and this is what the framers of our
Constitution
have
fundamentally
guaranteed to the citizens. The procedure
prescribed under law is as fundamental
under Article 21 as the right of personal
liberty itself whereas Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India protects a citizen from
the prosecution and punishment for the
same offence more than once.

4. The present writ petition has
challenged the legality of an FIR registered
vide number 98 of 2021 the investigation
whereof was transferred to SIT by opposite
party no.1 on the date of registration of FIR
itself i.e. 4.3.2001. The SIT renumbered the
case vide FIR number 4 of 2021 under
Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC.
The original number of the second FIR i.e.
98
of
2021
is
mentioned
in
the
corresponding record of the FIR of SIT i.e.
FIR No. 4/2021 with all relevant particulars
including the date of registration of the
second FIR on 4.3.2021 at 3.52 hours. The
presentation of the written information of
recovery memo in the police station is
mentioned at 3.51 hours whereas the date
of occurrence is shown at 1.45 hours to
1.45 hours on 4.3.2021.

5. The FIR was registered against as
many as sixteen persons but the owner of
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the manufacturing company for whose
benefit the double exit of country made
liquor on a single waybill (bilty)/gate pass
was indulged into, despite being the main
profiteer
of
the
alleged
occurrence
mentioned in the recovery memo, was not
named in the FIR and has not been arrested
even otherwise.

6. The petitioners have challenged the
FIR mainly on the ground that the same
written information in respect of the
alleged occurrence was already registered
at 3.51 hours as FIR No. 97 of 2021 under
Section 60 of the Excise Act, 1910 at the
same police station on the same day,
therefore,
the
registration
and
fresh
investigation pursuant to the second FIR
arising
out
of
the
same
occurrence/information within a closest
proximity of time for multiple offences
under IPC was impermissible in the eye of
law and hence the impugned FIR may be
quashed alongwith the investigation held in
pursuance thereof and the petitioners no. 2,
8 to 15 sent to judicial custody may be
released on interim bail.

7. The facts of the case according to
the petitioners, briefly stated, are that FIR
No. 97 of 2021 under Section 60 of Excise
Act, 1910, renumbered by SIT as FIR No. 3
of 2021 was already registered at the
concerned police station containing entirely
the same version as that of second FIR No.
98 of 2021 registered under Section 420,
467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC on 4.3.2021. The
police authorities having registered the two
FIRs within a margin of one minute
proceeded to arrest the petitioners no. 8, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 on the same day and
on production before the competent court,
they were taken into judicial custody under
remand
orders
passed
separately
on
4.3.2021 in both the cases i.e. Case Crime
No. 97 of 2021 under Section 60 of the
U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and Case Crime No.
98 of 2021 under Section 420, 467, 468,
471, 477-A IPC and Section 66 IT Act. The
petitioners no. 2 and 12 were likewise
arrested thereafter and remanded to judicial
custody and are presently in jail. The
investigating officer having held some
investigation does not appear to have
apprised the competent court of any
technical difficulty about the two FIRs, as
such, interlocutory remand orders were
separately passed on 4.3.2021 and extended
thereafter in both the cases. The record
reveals that police report was filed on
1.5.2021 in case crime no. 3/2021 under
Section 60(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910
whereafter the remand was extended in the
other case. The first case was posted for
taking cognizance after reopening of the
courts closed due to lockdown.

8. In the meantime, the petitioners no.
1, 3 and 4 were granted anticipatory bail,
whereas petitioner no. 5 was granted
interim stay of arrest in the first FIR. The
petitioners no. 6 and 7 have not been
arrested. The petitioners no. 8 to 15 though
on interim bail in the first FIR, are in
judicial custody pursuant to the remand
order passed in the second FIR. To be
precise, nine out of fifteen petitioners are in
judicial custody whereas remaining six, as
per the second supplementary affidavit
filed by the petitioners on 27.5.2021, have
not been arrested and this position is
evident from Annexure No. SA-5 filed
therewith.

9. It is an undisputed fact between the
parties that a single written information by
way of recovery memo presented by
opposite party no. 3 (informant) before the
police station on 4.3.2021 gave rise to the
registration of two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 97 of
6 All. Kamal Daniel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
205
2021 under Section 60 of Excise Act, 1910
and the FIR No. 98 of 2021 under Section
420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC. It is also an
admitted position before this Court that the
contents
of
the
written
information
presented before the police station was one
and the same yet the two FIRs for multiple
offences arising out of the same occurrence
were registered separately. The registration
of
second
FIR
inclusive
of
fresh
investigation pursuant thereto, according to
learned counsel for the petitioners, was
impermissible in view of the law laid down
by the apex court in the case of
T.T.Antony vs State of Kerala & others,
(2001) 6 SCC 181.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that it is the first
information registered under Section 154
Cr.P.C.
according
to
which
the
investigation
can
go
on
and
any
investigation for the same occurrence based
on a second FIR is fresh investigation hit
by the mandate of law as propounded by
the apex court in the judgement referred to
above. Therefore, any proceedings in
furtherance thereof inclusive of the remand
orders passed by the competent court are
void ab initio hence the petitioners who are
languishing in jail on the strength of the
remand orders passed in Case Crime No.
98 of 2021 renumbered as FIR No. 4 of
2021 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
477-A IPC and Section 66 IT Act are liable
to be released on interim bail.

11. Per contra, the State has filed two
short counter affidavits, one sworn on
25.5.2021 and the other on 28.5.2021. In
the short counter affidavit filed on
25.5.2021, a specific plea of technical
difficulty has been set out to the effect that
the information presented by the informant
while being uploaded for registration of the
FIR did not accept Section 60 Excise Act
alongwith the multiple offences under IPC
and this is what has occasioned the
registration of two FIRs. The exact version
set out in the counter affidavit contained in
paragraph 6 of the former short counter
affidavit is extracted hereunder:

"6. That in the present case, two FIRs
had been registered due to technical
problem which was faced by the police
station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur
because the software of CCTNS for
registration of FIR was not taking the
excise sections invoked in Excise Act
alongwith the Sections of IPC and,
therefore in the compelling circumstances
having no option two FIRs had been
registered which are as under:

(i) FIR No. 97 of 2021 under
Section 60 of the Excise Act, Police Station
Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur; and

(ii) FIR No. 98 of 2021 under
Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC,
Polce Station Kotwali Dehat, District
Saharanpur."

12. Insofar as the consequential action
of investigation inclusive of remand orders
is concerned, it is submitted that the matter
has now been considered by the State
Government and on having realised the
irregularity, it was decided that the second
FIR shall henceforth be merged and further
investigation shall proceed as a part and
parcel of FIR No. 97 of 2021 renumbered
by SIT as FIR No. 3 of 2021 for multiple
offences. The investigation carried out in
the subsequent FIR is, therefore, treated as
further investigation for all purposes.

13. It is also submitted that the
concerned court has also passed necessary
order in this regard and the remand order
henceforth shall be obtained in the earliest
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information i.e. F.I.R. No. 3/2021 by the
SIT.

14. The version set out in the counter
affidavit that the second FIR came to be
registered on account of a technical
difficulty has further been justified on the
strength of the documents contained in
Annexure SCA-1 to SCA-5 of the short
counter affidavit filed on 25.5.2021. The
first document i.e. Annexure No. SCA-1
filed alongwith the short counter affidavit
is undated. This letter is stated to be issued
under the signature of the Incharge of the
concerned Police Station i.e. Kotwali
Dehat, District Saharanpur addressed to
Assistant Excise Commissioner, Meerut
Zone, Meerut. The other documents i.e.
SCA-2 to SCA-5 were issued on 25.5.2021
and have swiftly moved from one office to
another in an unusual manner. The
documents also became a part of short
counter affidavit sworn on 25.5.2021 itself.

15. All these documents contained in
Annexures SCA-1 to SCA-5, on a close
scrutiny, clearly show that this exercise
undertaken on 25.5.2021 was afterthought,
unusual and simply to justify the action on
the part of Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, U.P. who had transferred the
investigation by passing an order on
4.3.2021 wherein the details of both the
FIRs transferred to SIT for investigation
are mentioned. Interestingly the order dated
4.3.2021 transferring the investigation was
passed on the same very date of lodging of
the two FIRs arising out of the same
occurrence. The competent authority who
ought to have thrashed out the illegality,
firstly failed to notice a serious lapse on the
part of concerned police station and
secondly there was absolutely no attempt
on his part to streamline the process of
investigation as per the mandate of law.
Thirdly, the transfer of investigation on the
same very day without disclosing any
administrative reason securing fairness of
investigation speaks of nothing but a
deliberate omission of duty apparent on the
face of record. Anything prior in point of
time than the lodging of criminal case as
noticed by Addl. Chief Secretary, Home,
U.P. on 4.3.2021, was irrelevant and
nothing impinging on the fairness of
ongoing investigation has been spelt out
that may have warranted the transfer of
investigation.

16. To say the least and without
impeding the investigation by SIT, it can be
safely concluded that the documents i.e.
Annexures SCA-1 to SCA-5 placed on
record
are
clearly
afterthought
and
designed to justify an ill intentioned order
passed by the Addl Chief Secretary, Home,
U.P. on 4.3.2021.

17. This Court in the normal course
would not view such a lapse on the part of
the highest authority of the department so
lightly but in absence of a contest on such
an aspect, the Court in the discharge of its
legal duty would strike a note of caution
and it is expected that an officer positioned
as Head of the Department must always act
to serve the purpose of law. The majesty of
law on sensitive matters like the case at
hand could not be compromised. In case
the offences of this description at the
highest level of department are dealt with
selectively, the fate of investigation is
bound to suffer leaving a far reaching
impact on the administration of criminal
justice. The investigating agency, therefore,
is cautioned to be fair and independent.

18. The Court would further expect
that the administrative order issued on
26.4.2016 by the then DGP as regards
6 All. Kamal Daniel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207
merger of FIRs arising out of the same
occurrence, may also be revisited and
brought in consonance with law.

19. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the following issues being
relevant in the present case deserve a
consideration in the interest of justice:

(1) As to whether two separate FIRs
for multiple offences arising out of the
same occurrence based on a single written
information were rightly registered at the
concerned police station and transferred
thereafter as separate cases by the State for
investigation by SIT;

(2) As to whether the rectification of
the irregulairty admitted by the State can be
condoned in the facts and circumstances of
the case;

(3) As to whether the investigation and
the consequential action of remand resorted
to in furtherance of FIR No. 98 of 2021
renumbered as FIR No. 4 of 2021 under
Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC can
be treated to be further investigation for all
purposes of the case or the same is liable to
be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

20. For the sake of convenience and
brevity the question no. 1 and 2 are taken
up together for consideration.

21. Sri Siddhartha Luthra, learned
Senior Counsel would contend that the
procedure prescribed under law once
deviated by the State at the threshold would
strongly attract the principle viz. once the
foundation is not in consonance with law,
the subsequent action in furtherance thereof
would necessarily fall, therefore, not only
that the registration of the impugned FIR
No. 4/2021 is illegal in the eye of law but
all
the
consequential
proceedings
in
furtherance thereof to the extent of remand
orders are liable to be set aside.

22. To substantiate the argument put
forth, learned counsel for the petitioners
has further cited the judgement reported in
(2011) 14 SCC 770 (State of Punjab v.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar). Emphasis is
laid on paragraphs 107 to 111. This Court
would note that the principle of law laid
down by the apex court in the case of T.T.
Antony(supra) remains a good law and it
cannot be said that a second FIR for one or
multiple offences arising out of the same
occurrence would lie. This would be
contrary to what has been held in paragraph
20 of the judgement in the case of T.T.
Antony which for ready reference is
reproduced hereunder:

"From the above discussion it follows
that under the scheme of the provisions of
Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170
and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the
first
information
in
regard
to
the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence
satisfies the requirements of Section 154
Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R.
and consequently there can be no fresh
investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence
or incident giving rise to one or more
cognizable
offences.
On
receipt
of
information about a cognizable offence or
an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the
F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer
in charge of a Police Station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable
offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been
committed in the course of the same
transaction or the same occurrence and file
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one or more reports as provided in Section
173 of the Cr.P.C."

23. In the case at hand the
distinguishing features as compared to the
case of T.T. Antony are that the State in the
present case has conceded the irregularity
on its part whereas in the case law relied
upon, there was a contest and the State
went on to support the second F.I.R. arising
out the same occurrence and the issue was
thus decided as above. It is to be noted that
the time gap between the two FIRs in he
above judgement unlike the present case
was significant which is why the resultant
injury to the aggrieved accused was found
justiciable by the apex court.

24. Moreover, the principle as
emphasized and stated to be followed
invariably by the courts of law on the
strength of judgement in the case of State
of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(supra) is also distant and would not apply
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. It is the own case of the
petitioners that the earliest FIR alone is to
be treated as the information within the
meaning of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and it is
equally admitted to the parties that the
contents of the first FIR are identical to that
of the second FIR. Therefore, there is no
reason for this Court to assume the
foundation of the present case anything
other
than
the
earliest
FIR
which
admittedly stands. That being so, the
foundation of the present case i.e. the first
FIR giving wide powers to investigation
does not fall, as such, the argument of
foundational collapse has no legs to stand
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The discovery of any material
connected to an information registered
under Section 154 Cr.P.C., documentary or
oral, is a part of investigation or further
investigation.

25. It is for this reason that the State
has proceeded to rectify the lapse on its
part and the technical irregularity that had
crept in was removed. The technical lapse
has come to be pointed out at a nascent
stage of investigation when the rule of
double jeopardy neither stood attracted nor
can it be termed to be a case of fresh
investigation having offended any valuable
rights. The petitioners who were subjected
to simultaneous investigation would have
faced the same consequence in the normal
course but for the technical difficulty as
explained. The petitioners have also not
attributed any mala fides in this regard. The
investigating officer has already filed
police report against some of the accused
persons on 1.5.2021 in FIR No. 97/2021
renumbered by the SIT as FIR No. 3/2021
under Section 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act,
1910 and as against the rest, further
investigation is stated to be pending. The
State Government by order dated 27.5.2021
has merged the impugned second FIR with
FIR No. 3/2021 for carrying out further
investigation. The competent court has also
passed an order continuing the two
proceedings as one in Case Crime No. 3 of
2021 for multiple offences and an order to
this effect stated to have been passed on
27.5.2021 is placed on record.

26. Looking to the strong variables
mentioned above, which differentiate the
present case from the case laws cited, it is
thus
doubtless
that
the
process
of
investigation has been streamlined as
prescribed under law. The petitioners are
no more subjected to separate or double
investigation in pursuance of the impugned
FIR.
6 All. Kamal Daniel & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209

27. The discovery of any material,
oral or documentary, after the registration
of the earliest FIR under Section 154
Cr.P.C. forms a part of the investigation by
virtue of Section 162 Cr.P.C. for filing the
police report or supplementary report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, rectification
at the nascent stage of investigation being
exceptional in the present case deserves
acceptance and is condoned for what has
been recorded above. The arguments to the
contrary fail and are rejected.

28. On the aspect of transfer of
investigation, the observation already made
would suffice and it is undesirable to
reiterate the same. It is expected that
further investigation in the matter by SIT
shall be carried out in accordance with law
and all the culprits involved in the
commission of offences are booked for
action with promptitude.

29. On question no. 3, learned Senior
Counsel has next argued that even if the
second FIR and the investigation pursuant
thereto has been merged yet it would not
rectify the process retrospectively. The
remand orders passed by the trial court
treating FIR No. 4/2021 as a separate case,
nevertheless, are non est and liable to be set
aside. The purpose of filing the present writ
petition, at least, would not stand frustrated
looking to the two interim orders passed by
this Court on 25.5.2021 and 27.5.2021, it is
argued.

30. This Court may note that the
authority of investigation in relation to the
cognizable offences lies expansively in the
domain of the investigating agency. This
Court even does not enjoy supervisory
control
in
this
regard.
A
landmark
judgement of the Privy Council in the case
of Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR
(32) 1945 PC 18] offers some guidance
which has been followed throughout. The
relevant
passage
of
the
judgement
invariably quoted is extracted below:

"In India as has been shown there is a
statutory right on the part of the police to
investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any
authority from the judicial authorities, and
it would, as their Lordships think, be an
unfortunate result if it should be held
possible to interfere with those statutory
rights by an exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court."

31. It may be worthwhile to note that
even the irregularities in the matter of
investigation are saved by virtue of Section
156(2) or Section 460 (a) & (b) Cr.P.C. It is
also well settled that the remand orders
enabling investigation have no bearing on
the trial.

32. This Court for the reasons
recorded above has already opined that
simultaneous investigation in the present
case
would
not
amount
to
fresh
investigation. Interference in a matter
where the earliest information prima facie
makes out a cognizable offence coupled
with the fact that a police report under
Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has come to be
filed against some of the petitioners does
not leave any scope for us to interfere in the
impugned FIR which no more exists as a
separate case. The settled position of law
laid down by the apex court in the case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992
Supp.(1) SCC 335) when tested in the
gravamen of this case clearly discourages
and resists interference in the exercise of
writ
jurisdiction.
Moreover,
the
interlocutory remand orders in absence of
any specific challenge and having no
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bearing on trial are not amenable to the writ
of certiorari, hence the third question
propounded above is also decided in
negative.

33. The petitioners in judicial custody
have thus a remedy of bail under Section
439 Cr.P.C. whereas the petitioners who
are not arrested are also at liberty to invoke
the remedy of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.

34. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed without prejudice to the remedy
as above.
----------
(2021)06ILR A210
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Single No. 11021 of 2021

Savitri Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Judicial Ii, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sarvesh Kumar, Hari Om Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(a)
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Delay
Condonation - The Additional Commissioner
failed to examine the day-to day delay of eight
years explained in filing the recall application.
The matter has been remitted back to examine
the correctness of the explanation given by the
petitioner on the subject of delay condonation.
(Para 16)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cited cases:-
1. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Ahmed Jaan (2008)
14 SCC 582

2. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr.
Vs Mst. Kaitji & ors. AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT
1353

3. K. Sabbarayudu & ors. Vs Special Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition) (2017) 12 SCC 840

4. N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishmamurthy

5. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs shanti
Mishra

6. Brij Indar Singh Vs Kanshi Ram

7. Shakuntala Dei Jain Vs Kunta Kumari

8. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Nirmala Devi

9. Lala Mata Din Vs A.Narayanan

10. State of Kerala Vs EK. Kuriyipe

11. Milavi Devi Vs Dina Nath

12. O.P. Kathpalia Vs Lakhmir

13. Ummer Vs Pottengal Subida & ors. (2018)
15 SCC 127

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Hari Om Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raj Bux
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 through
video conferencing and perused the record.

2. For the order proposed to be passed
issuance of notice to opposite party Nos. 4
and 5 is hereby dispensed with.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition
for following reliefs:

"1. To issue a writ, direction, or order
in the nature of Certiorari quashing of the