- (1.) HEARD Miss. Afshan Shafaut holding brief of Ms. Archna Hans, learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State? respondent.
(2.) THIS writ petition seeks a direction from this court to respondent no. 2 and 3 who are Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar and Station House Officer, Mohana in the same district, to arrest the accused persons of case crime no. 147 of 2011 registered by the above named police station. The reason for seeking the direction is that the accused persons named in the FIR had filed criminal misc. writ petitions before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR with a further direction to the police not to arrest them. But those writ petition were dismissed. We find force in that contention as the listing section of the Court through National Informatics Centre of the High Court has given some details in the list of fresh cases. However, there are several decisions, a couple to that from the Apex Court that the police are not ordinarily to arrest the accused. Considering the directions in D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 216, an amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure was also incorporated as per sections 41A and 41-B. In that view of the matter, it could be simply futile for this court to issue any direction to affect the arrest of the accused persons as that direction shall run contrary to the present provisions of Cr.P.C. and some of the decisions of the Apex Court. Moreover, issuing any direction to take any step in investigation would nonetheless tantamount to an interference in the investigation by the police. Besides, that direction should be in the absence of giving any opportunity to the accused of being heard, which appears more prominent a reason for us not to issue that direction because it will adversely affect the personal liberty of a person. We as such refuse that prayer. We find receiving immense number of petitions setting up reliefs which have been sought by the present petitioner. We were pained to find that inspite of cases being of serious nature or inspite of allegations emanated from some concrete report, the informant of cases have to run to this court for satiating these grievances which also appears commentary of the proper functioning of the police. As regards its duty of the investigation of cognizable cases, the courts are custodian of law and other wing of custodian of law is the police force also, which has the obligation of maintaining peace and order in the society. The police has also the responsibility of investigating the offences appropriately during that course, taking all the proper steps which are required to be taken, on account of being part of the investigation. No citizen of India could be asked to run from pillor to post so as to remind the police officer as to what could be their statutory duty of investigating the cognizable cases. Receiving of such petitions in huge number has given an impression to us that the police is not seriously minding its duties of investigating cognizable offences and that has given rise to the huge number of filing of petitions of such a nature. We want through the present order, to remind the Director General of Police, State of U.P. to pay immediate necessary attention to the aspects of these huge filing of the present petitions at situation we have to put down in the present order and to issue immediate instructions to all the police officers of whatever grade, who are handling the investigation of different cases, to conclude the investigation within a particular time frame, laying down the report before the appropriate court of law. We wish that the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh shall act within two weeks of receipt of the present order which must be transmitted by the office of this Court immediately, to him. We dispose of the writ petition in the above light.;