- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. In the present case, the petitioner wanted to get an order of quashing the F. I. R. dated 9th May, 2005 lodged as Case Crime No. 69 of 2005, under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 472 I. P. C. and 13 (2) and 13 (1) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. We are not inclined to do so because of various reasons reflected from the writ petition and other materials. We do not want to express our view to pass such negative order because the same may ultimately affect the investigation and trial, if any.
(2.) WE have special justice delivery system in our State under the writ jurisdiction in connection with the criminal and quasi criminal matters. There is a reason behind introduction of such jurisdiction. No provision of anticipatory bail is available in this State. Therefore, in discharging judicial function in this jurisdiction this Court not only consider the ratio of the judgment reported in 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , whereunder the Supreme Court framed certain guidelines in respect of quashing the F. I. R. in exercise of extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also ratio of the other judgments relevant for the purpose other than quashing of F. I. R. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 1994 JIC 760 (SC) : 1994 (31) ACC 431, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows: "a person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police Officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do. " At the time of delivery of aforementioned judgment the Supreme Court has proceeded even to the extent of rights and personal liberties of the citizens under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in connection with arrest. Similar question of personal liberties in the cases of victims was also considered by the Supreme Court even upto the extent of grant of interim compensation as reported in 1996 (1) JIC 236 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 922, Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss. Subhra Chakraborty. In Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2002 (1) JIC 3 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Cri) 110, the Supreme Court held as follows: "it is true that interference by the Court at the investigation stage is not called for. However, it is equally true that the investigating agency cannot be given the latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time. "
(3.) THEREFORE, what would be the analogy ? The analogy is that the Court in the restraint manner consider the individual cases and pass appropriate discretionary orders, where it will be able to find justifiable. At the time of passing order the Court will also remember the distinguishable features in between quashing of F. I. R. and/or other reliefs and grounds for not to arrest to suffice the real purpose of the unique jurisdiction of this High Court.;