# Ram Lallan and others v. State of U.P. Through Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, S. V.Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lallan-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-through-secy-home-u-p-govt-lucknow-and-42076
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-stay of
arrest-offence under section 452, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C.-with allegations police
trying to arrest ignoring law laid down
by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Apex
Court-No doubt-direction of Apex Court
equally binding upon every court as
including Police officer-in absence of
specific pleading in writ petition-arrest
can not be stayed-as prima faci offence
made out-petition dismissed with liberty
if any illegality committed by Police
contrary to direction of Apex Court-ca
approach before appropriate forum.

Held: Para 7

In our view, in this particular case there
is no such pleading substantiated with
appropriate material that any Police
officer is acting illegally so as to warrant
any protection/direction from this Court.
However, we make it clear that in case
any authority acts illegally, it is always
open
to
petitioners
to
approach
appropriate Forum including this Court
for
appropriate
protection
but
no
mandamus at this stage ought be issued
particularly when the first information
3 All] Ram Lallan & others V. State of U.P. Through Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lucknow & others
1449
report shows commission of an offence
warranting no interference.
Case law discussed:
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011
(Shaukin Vs. State of U.P. & others)

## Text

1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

"13. We find full force in the
submissions so made by Shri Jayant
Bhushan to a certain extent, and hold
that all proceedings pending before any
court/authority under the Act, 1976,
stood
abated
automatically
on
commencement of the Act 1999 in
force, provided the possession of the
land involved in a particular case had
not been taken by the State. Such a view
is in consonance with the law laid down
by this Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop
Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust vs.
State of U.P. And others, (2000) 6 SCC
325: Ghasitey Lal Sahu and another vs.
Competent Authority, (2004) 13 SCC
452: Mukarram Ali Khan vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, (2007) 11
SCC 90: 2007 (3) SCCD 1344 (SC) and
Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande
vs. Pune Municipal Transport and
others, JT 2010 SC 298."

5. In view of above, we dispose of
the writ petitions finally directing the
revenue authorities/respondents to abide
by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court(supra) and not to interfere with
the petitioners' peaceful possession of
the land in question in case in view of
the provisions contained in 1976 Act
(supra),
the
State
had
not
taken
possession of the land in dispute.

6. The writ petitions are disposed
of accordingly. No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE S. V.SINGH RATHORE, J.

Misc. Bench No. - 12692 of 2011

Ram Lallan and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Through Secy. Home U.P.
Govt. Lucknow and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dileep Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Constitution of India, Article 226-stay of
arrest-offence under section 452, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C.-with allegations police
trying to arrest ignoring law laid down
by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Apex
Court-No doubt-direction of Apex Court
equally binding upon every court as
including Police officer-in absence of
specific pleading in writ petition-arrest
can not be stayed-as prima faci offence
made out-petition dismissed with liberty
if any illegality committed by Police
contrary to direction of Apex Court-ca
approach before appropriate forum.

Held: Para 7

In our view, in this particular case there
is no such pleading substantiated with
appropriate material that any Police
officer is acting illegally so as to warrant
any protection/direction from this Court.
However, we make it clear that in case
any authority acts illegally, it is always
open
to
petitioners
to
approach
appropriate Forum including this Court
for
appropriate
protection
but
no
mandamus at this stage ought be issued
particularly when the first information
3 All] Ram Lallan & others V. State of U.P. Through Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lucknow & others
1449
report shows commission of an offence
warranting no interference.
Case law discussed:
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011
(Shaukin Vs. State of U.P. & others)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners.

2. Petitioners have come to this Court
in this writ petition with prayer for quashing
of first information report dated 2.12.2011
in case crime no. 276 of 2011, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Mandhata, District Pratapgarh.

3. From a bare perusal of first
information report, it cannot be said that no
offence is made out. Learned counsel for
petitioners, at this stage, submitted that
Police is unauthorizedly trying to arrest the
petitioners and, therefore, their arrest should
be stayed till the report is submitted by
Police. He placed reliance on a Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011
(Shaukin Vs. State of U.P. & others)
decided on 14.12.2011. A perusal of
aforesaid judgment clearly shows that
considering
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances involved in that matter, the
Court expressed its displeasure at the casual
and routine manner by which the concerned
Judicial Magistrate allowed judicial remand
of accused on mere application moved by
the concerned police officer without
examining pre-conditions for granting
judicial remand laid down in Section 41 (1)
(b) Cr.P.C. and the decision of this High
Court and Apex Court.

4. It admits no doubt that whenever a
law is laid down by Apex Court, it is
binding on all the authorities, whether
executive or judicial, in the entire Country.
The law laid down by Apex Court is the law
of land and everybody in this Country is
bound to obey the same. Article 141 of
Constitution declares that the law declared
by the Apex Court shall be binding on all
Courts within the territory of India and
Article 144 says that all authorities, civil
and judicial, shall act in aid of Supreme
Court. The supremacy of the law laid down
by Apex Court with the binding effect
admits no doubt. The executive authorities
including the Police, therefore, are neither
expected nor can act in a manner which
would be contrary to law laid down by
Apex Court else the erring official(s) would
be responsible to face its consequences.
Similarly, if a law has been laid down by
this Court, in the State it is binding and
ought to be complied by all the authorities
concerned whether executive or judicial.

5. However, it cannot be said that
whenever a person, against whom a first
information report has been lodged, comes
to this Court, on his mere asking this Court
should pass an order restraining the Police
from arresting him unless the pleading in
writ petition demonstrate that Police is
likely to arrest the petitioner and that too
unauthorizedly and illegally. In other words,
a petitioner must plead and substantiate that
Police authorities are trying to illegally
arrest the petitioner before he seeks
indulgence of this Court restraining the
Police authorities from doing so. The scope
of writ petition under article 226 in which a
request has been made for quashing of first
information report should not be extended
like a bail application to be considered by
this Court in a routine manner without there
being appropriate pleading and material to
substantiate the same. It is well settled that
Court shall not issue futile and superfluous
writs. Unless an allegation is made and
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
substantiated, such direction ought not to be
issued. There is no presumption that the
executive authorities including Police shall
not act strictly in accordance with law
which includes the statutory law as well as
the judicial orders issued by Court and in
particular the Apex Court. We cannot
presume that any authority will be acting
illegally unless a specific case is pleaded
and substantiated before this Court. The
presumption lies in favour of executive
authorities
that
they
are
acting
in
accordance
with
law
unless
shown
otherwise. It is true that at ground level,
scenario has deteriorated to some extent and
time and again the matters have come
wherein the highhandedness, brutality and
other illegal acts of Police authorities have
been reported to the Courts and the Courts
have also passed stern appropriate orders
therein but that does not mean that the same
would form a rule of practice in every case
for such presumption.

6. It is also noteworthy to mention that
mere lodging of first information report
does not mean that a person has to be
arrested
necessarily
unless
the
circumstances so justify and the Police
authorities have appropriate and genuine
reasons for the same. The people's liberty is
of paramount importance and cannot be
curtailed merely for the reason that a first
information report regarding commission of
an offence has been lodged since for the
purpose of arrest, different conditions are
required to exist before any Police officer
shall proceed to arrest any person. We have
no hesitation in saying that in a suitable and
appropriate case, if any illegality on the part
of any Police officer is brought out before
this Court, we shall not hesitate in taking
appropriate stern action in the matter but
that would not mean that in every case in a
routine manner, this Court should/shall pass
order staying arrest of the person accused in
a criminal case.

7. In our view, in this particular case
there is no such pleading substantiated with
appropriate material that any Police officer
is acting illegally so as to warrant any
protection/direction
from
this
Court.
However, we make it clear that in case any
authority acts illegally, it is always open to
petitioners to approach appropriate Forum
including
this
Court
for
appropriate
protection but no mandamus at this stage
ought be issued particularly when the first
information report shows commission of an
offence warranting no interference.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI,J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 22220 of 2002

Chhotey Lal Dubey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secy. Home and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226punishment withholding integrity for one
year-petitioner working as constable in
civil
police-charged
for
permitting
unauthorized traveling-whole on duty
along with six member of Escort Policeno specific allegation against individual