# Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 50
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 28862 of 2009
- **Bench:** R.K. Agarwal, S.C. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-abbot-v-state-of-punjab-41507
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-detention order passed
on 21.3.2009- 275 explosive detonators
recovered from possession of petitioner-
to supply the nexlite- certainly a serious
charge-
but
delay
in
disposal
of
Representation
about
four
weeks-
process of law must have been followed-
explanation for delay- minister concern
was on tour held not proper- detention
order quashed.

Held: Para-11
1 All] Shashi Kumar Yadav V. Union of India and others
51
We find that this inordinate delay of 4
weeks in disposal of the representation
of
the
petitioner
by
the
Central
Government has not been adequately
and reasonably explained by the Central
Government. We are conscious of the
fact that the allegations against the
petitioner are of a very serious nature
but when it is decided to preventively
detain a person by depriving him of his
right of personal freedom, the due
process of law has to be observed. The
manner in which the representation of
the petitioner remained pending before
the Central Government for a long period
of about 4 weeks, is shocking to the
conscience
of
the
Court.
In
these
circumstances, we have no option but to
quash the continued detention of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1999 SC 684, 2009 (67) ACC 83

## Text

50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in court by petitioner no. 1 within
stipulated period.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that parties have
come to terms and matrimonial dispute
has been mutually settled and thus the
FIR and all proceedings connected
therewith be quashed.

10. Apex Court in case of Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Cri.) 464
observed as under:-

"We need to emphasise that it is
perhaps advisable that in disputes
where the question involved is of a
pure personal nature, the court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the terms
of the compromise even in criminal
proceedings as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour
of the prosecution is a luxury which the
courts, grossly overburdened as they
are, cannot afford and that the time so
saved can be utilised in deciding more
effective and meaningful litigation. This
is a common sense approach to the
matter based on ground of realities and
bereft of the technicalities of the law.

11. Considering the facts that the
subject matter of this FIR, which is a
matrimonial dispute and is of a pure
personal nature, is now stands voluntary,
mutually and amicably settled between
the parties vide compromise deed filed
through Mediation Centre of this Court,
we see no purpose in continuing the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR in
question. The dispute between the parties
is of a purely personal nature. After
compromise between the parties, keeping
the matter alive with no possibility of a
result in favour of the prosecution is a
luxury for the courts.

12. We accordingly allow the writ
petition and the FIR dated 5.6.2007
relating to case crime no. 41 of 2007
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Armapur, District-
Kanpur
Nagar
and
all
proceedings
connected therewith are quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.
28862 of 2009

Shashi Kumar Yadav

...Applicant
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramanuj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
Sri V.K. Nagaich
A.S.G.I.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-detention order passed
on 21.3.2009- 275 explosive detonators
recovered from possession of petitioner-
to supply the nexlite- certainly a serious
charge-
but
delay
in
disposal
of
Representation
about
four
weeks-
process of law must have been followed-
explanation for delay- minister concern
was on tour held not proper- detention
order quashed.

Held: Para-11
1 All] Shashi Kumar Yadav V. Union of India and others
51
We find that this inordinate delay of 4
weeks in disposal of the representation
of
the
petitioner
by
the
Central
Government has not been adequately
and reasonably explained by the Central
Government. We are conscious of the
fact that the allegations against the
petitioner are of a very serious nature
but when it is decided to preventively
detain a person by depriving him of his
right of personal freedom, the due
process of law has to be observed. The
manner in which the representation of
the petitioner remained pending before
the Central Government for a long period
of about 4 weeks, is shocking to the
conscience
of
the
Court.
In
these
circumstances, we have no option but to
quash the continued detention of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1999 SC 684, 2009 (67) ACC 83

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has
been filed for setting-aside the order of
detention passed against the petitioner
Shashi Kumar Yadav under Section 3 (2)
of the National Security Act dated
21.3.2009
by
District
Magistrate,
Chandauli.

2. The detention order was passed
on the grounds that the petitioner was
involved in supplying explosives to the
nexalite organisations. On 31.1.2009 at 1
p.m., a police party under leadership of
Sri R.K. Ram, inspector, P.S Chandauli,
checked bus no. U.P.65-R-9305. On
search, 275 explosives detonators were
recovered from the possession of the
petitioner, whereas 275 detonators were
recovered from the possession of the coaccused
Manjoor
Rajdhar
and
250
detonators were recovered from the
possession
of
Sikandar
Ram.
The
petitioner had no license to possess the
above detonators. These detonators were
to be sold to nexalite organisations who
were involved in violent activities against
public and the security forces, creating a
feeling of fear and panic in the public
mind and affecting the public order.
District Magistrate apprehended that the
petitioner was trying to obtain bail from
the Court and if the petitioner was granted
bail, there was apprehension that he
would again involve himself in the
aforesaid anti-national activities affecting
the public order and peace, hence, it was
thought necessary to preventively detain
the petitioner.

3. We have heard Sri Ramanuj
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 2 to 7 and Sri V.K.
Nagaich, learned counsel for respondent
no.1 Union of India.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has confined himself to one
submission that the representation of the
petitioner dated 1.4.2009 which was
submitted to various authorities including
the Central Government through jailor,
was considered with inordinate delay by
the Central Government.

5. It was pointed out that the District
Magistrate forwarded the petitioner's
representation with his comments on
14.4.2009, to the State Government after
obtaining the comments from the S.P.
Chandauli. It was submitted that the State
Government received the representation
on 15.4.2009 and even rejected the same
on 21.4.2009. This shows that the State
Government
disposed
of
the
representation of the petitioner with utter
promptness.
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
6. In the two counter affidavits filed
on behalf of Union of India by the under
Secretary, Ministry of Home and Affairs,
Government of India, it was submitted
that though there has been some delay in
consideration of the representation by the
Central Government, but there has not
been any casualness in the matter. The
administrative delay is due to huge
voluminous bulk of such cases received
from the State of U.P. The ministry had
taken some time in clearing the back-log
and the work has now been streamlined to
avoid such lapses and delay. The two
affidavits filed on behalf of respondent
no.1 are dated 16.7.2009 and 15.12.2009.
Both
the
affidavits
are
highly
unsatisfactory. No particulars have been
given in the affidavits to show as to when
the representation of the petitioner was
received by the Central Government from
the State Government and when it was
processed and on which date, the same
was rejected. We are shocked to see such
casual approach on behalf of the Central
Government in dealing with the grave
matters like preventive detention.

7. The affidavit filed on behalf of
the State of U.P reveals that the
representation of the petitioner was sent to
the Central Government on 17.4.2009 by
speed post. It must have reached the
Central Government within 3 days i.e.
latest by 20.4.2009.

8. The representation was rejected
by the Central Government on 18.5.2009
after a lapse of 4 weeks. No satisfactory
explanation for this delay has been
furnished by the respondent no.1. The
ground that during the relevant period, a
large number of representations were
received from the State of U.P cannot be
said to be a sufficient ground for not
taking action for a period of about 4
weeks.

9. In Rajammal V. State of Tamil
Nadu,
AIR
1999
SC
684
where
consideration of the representation had
been delayed merely because the Minister
was on tour, it was held to be an
unjustified ground for permitting violation
of the fundamental rights of liberty of a
citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution, as the said file could easily
have been forwarded to the Minister. The
said decision mentions that "absence of
Minister at the Headquarters is not
sufficient to justify the delay, since the
file could be reached to the Minister with
utmost promptitude in a case involving
the vital fundamental right of the citizen."

10. The absence of dealing clerk of
NSA Desk in February, 2009 due to long
leave and delay in consideration of NSA
matters was very seriously viewed by
another Bench of this Court in Pranshu
Dutt
Dwivedi
Vs.
Superintendent
District Jail, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad
and others, 2009 (67) ACC 83.

11. We find that this inordinate
delay of 4 weeks in disposal of the
representation of the petitioner by the
Central
Government
has
not
been
adequately and reasonably explained by
the
Central
Government.
We
are
conscious of the fact that the allegations
against the petitioner are of a very serious
nature but when it is decided to
preventively detain a person by depriving
him of his right of personal freedom, the
due process of law has to be observed.
The manner in which the representation of
the petitioner remained pending before
the Central Government for a long period
of about 4 weeks, is shocking to the
1 All] Chand and others V. State of U.P. and another
53
conscience of the Court. In these
circumstances, we have no option but to
quash the continued detention of the
petitioner.

12. The writ petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be released forthwith
unless wanted in connection with any
other case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 33050 of
2009

Chand and others

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 2(d)-
Complaint-on direction of magistrateCharge sheet submitted by police for
offense under section 323, 504, 506 IPCargument that the charge sheet be
treated like complaint and the I.O.
became
complainant-hence
without
recording
the
statement
of
the
complainant
and
their
witnessesmagistrate can not take cognizanceheld-wholly
misconceived-report
submitted by public servant no need of
recording
statement
application
rejected.

Held: Para 10 & 11-

I considered over this argument and I
feel that the same is misplaced. Proviso
to Section 200 of the criminal procedure
lays down that whenever a complaint is
made in writing by a public servant, the
Magistrate
need
not
examine
the
complainant or the witnesses.

In the present case also the complaint
has been filed by a public servant hence
the Magistrate was not obliged to record
the statement under Section 200 or 202
Cr.P.C..
Case law discussed-
2000 (2) JIC 649 (All) 200 (45) ACC 609.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.)

1. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for the quashment
of the charge sheet being charge sheet no.
NCR 24/2008 dated 15.10.2008 under
Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Lisari,
District Meerut.

2. As interim relief it has been
prayed that till the disposal of the
application the proceedings of the above
said case may be stayed.

3. In brief the facts of the case are
that one Kadir submitted a report against
the accused Chand and others at the
police station which was registered as a
non cognizable case. The complainant
then moved an application under Section
155 (2) of the code of criminal procedure
before the Magistrate making a prayer
that the police of the P.S. Lisari Gate may
be directed to make an investigation in the
case. This application was allowed by the
Magistrate vide order dated 21.4.2008 and
thereafter the investigation ensued. After
investigation the investigating officer
found that only the offence under Section
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are made out and as
such submitted the charge sheet for the
aforesaid offences. The Magistrate took
cognizance and summoned the accused