Manoj Kumar. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Manoj Kumar. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 02, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911238

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911238
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Naheed Ara Moonis, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6370 of 2010
Subject: CriminalCommercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO, J.] This CrI.A. is filed u/S.374 Cr.P.C against the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the Addl. S.J., FTC-I, Kolar in S.C.No.7/97 convicting the appellant-accused for die offences U/s.354 and 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence u/S.354 of IPC and fi...

Key legal issue: CriminalCommercial
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 207, 208, 204.

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar.

Advocate D.K. Srivastava, Saran Hajela, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 207, 208, 204.

Excerpt

[mr.justice b.v.pinto, j.] this cri.a. is filed u/s.374 cr.p.c against the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the addl. s.j., ftc-i, kolar in s.c.no.7/97 convicting the appellant-accused for die offences u/s.354 and 324 of ipc and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s.354 of ipc and fine of rs. 1.000/- and sentence of six months s.i for the offence u/s.323 of ipc and fine of rs.500/-. both the substantive sentences to run concurrently......as directed above within one month from today;(3) if certified copy is not presented within the time aforesaid the stay of arrest will not operate;(4) if at the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet is submitted instead of final report, it will be open to the judicial magistrate, if he decides to take cognizance, to summon the accused by summons or warrants in accordance with section 204 cr.p.c. after copies have been prepared for compliance with section 207/208 cr.p.c. (5) if for any unavoidable reason, the investigation cannot be completed within the aforesaid time of three months, it will be open to the investigating officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a miscellaneous application for enlargement of said time of three months by giving details of the investigation conducted during the aforesaid period of three months and also giving reasons why the investigation could not be completed within the time specified above; (6) if the charge sheet is decided to be submitted to the court of magistrate, in column no of the prescribed form of charge sheet it will be mentioned that the accused have not been arrested on account of stay order granted by this court;(7) the accused will cooperate with the investigation and in case of non-cooperation or otherwise if the investigating officer is of the opinion that for any other valid reason the arrest of accused is necessary during or for the purpose of investigation, it will be open to the investigating officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a misc. application giving details of non-cooperation as also details of what kind of cooperation is expected by the accused for completing investigation or why the arrest is otherwise necessary so that interim stay of arrest granted hereby may be vacated. the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Full Judgment

1. It would appear from the record that the arrest of the petitioners was stayed by an interim order passed in this writ petition. The investigation had not been stayed. It is not known whether the investigation has been completed yet or not.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

3. In the case of Mahendra Lal Das v State of Bihar 2002 SCC (Crl) 110 it has been held by the Supreme Court that while interference by Courts at investigation stage is not called for, the investigating agency cannot be given latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time.

4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending any longer. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(1) The investigation will be completed within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the Investigating Officer or any police officer of the district to whom the investigating officer is directly subordinate;

(2) The petitioners will not be arrested during pendency and for the purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is presented before the police officer as directed above within one month from today;

(3) If certified copy is not presented within the time aforesaid the stay of arrest will not operate;

(4) If at the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet is submitted instead of final report, it will be open to the judicial magistrate, if he decides to take cognizance, to summon the accused by summons or warrants in accordance with Section 204 Cr.P.C. after copies have been prepared for compliance with Section 207/208 Cr.P.C.

(5) If for any unavoidable reason, the investigation cannot be completed within the aforesaid time of three months, it will be open to the investigating officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a miscellaneous application for enlargement of said time of three months by giving details of the investigation conducted during the aforesaid period of three months and also giving reasons why the investigation could not be completed within the time specified above;

(6) If the charge sheet is decided to be submitted to the Court of magistrate, in column no of the prescribed form of charge sheet it will be mentioned that the accused have not been arrested on account of stay order granted by this Court;

(7) The accused will cooperate with the investigation and in case of non-cooperation or otherwise if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that for any other valid reason the arrest of accused is necessary during or for the purpose of investigation, it will be open to the Investigating Officer to apply in this writ petition by means of a Misc. application giving details of non-cooperation as also details of what kind of cooperation is expected by the accused for completing investigation or why the arrest is otherwise necessary so that interim stay of arrest granted hereby may be vacated. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Manoj Kumar. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject CriminalCommercial Same Judge Imtiyaz Murtaza, Naheed Ara Moonis, JJ. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 207, 208, 204.

CriminalCommercial