- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. Sri Kamlesh Singh moved a writ petition praying that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the "nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 15-12-1995 which gave rise to crime No. 621-A, under Sections 302/34/120-B, IPC, P. S. George Town, District Allahabad. The prayer is further made that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid crime and also to pass any suitable direction or order as the court may deem fit and proper.
(2.) EARLIER to this writ petition another writ petition was filed which was numbered as writ petition No. 625 of 1996 and that was not pressed Sri G. N. Verma appearing for the petitioner made a statement that he does not want to press this writ petition. He further made a statement that the fact that writ petition No. 626 of 1996 has been withdrawn as not pressed, is not mentioned in the present writ petition. It is a triple murder case. We do not want to comment on the merits and demerits of the case nor we do not want to comment on the allegations made in the application for stay of arrest by the petitioner as they are to be finally evaluated in trial. We would have allowed the permission to withdraw the writ petition but recently Supreme Court happened to observe in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kaloatri (1996) 1 SCC 542: "it appears strange that when a petition had been filed in the High Court, judgment obtained and the losing party comes to the Superior Court, then in order to avoid an unfavourable order, a request should be made for the withdrawal of the original proceeding in an effort to avoid an adverse decision from the Superior Court with a view to re-agitate the same contentions once again before the subordinate court. A party to the proceedings cannot be allowed at this stage at least to take a chance and if he gets the impression that he will not succeed to seek permission withdraw the original proceeding obviously with a view to re-agitate the same contentions, which have been or may be adjudicated upon by a higher court, before the subordinate court though in different proceedings. A practice like this is liable to be strongly deprecated. This will be opposed to judicial discipline and may lead to unhealthy practices which will not be conducive. On facts of the case there is no justification for permitting the respondent to with draw his writ petition. " We do not want to comment any further on this aspect and it is for the petitioner for the reasons best known to him that he wants ' withdraw the petition, which we in the circumstances do not allow.
(3.) WE would like to make comments and render findings on the legal aspect of maintainability of such type of petitions i. o. stay of arrest, quashing of the F. I. R. etc. WE would like to answer in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment only that how far such type of petition is maintainable. As soon as crime is suspected or committed a report is lodged under Section 154, Cr. P. C. with the Police Station which has a territorial jurisdiction to investigate. The police has been given power to investigate the offence. Section 154, Cr. P. C. refers information regarding cogniz able cases. After receiving of the information orally or in writing and after reducing in a particular register, if the police officer under Section 157, Cr. P. C. has a reason to suspect the commission of offence for which he is empowered Section 156, Cr. P. C. to investigate. He shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate in order to take cognizance of such offence upon such police report and shall proceed himself or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not below of such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribed in this behalf, to proceed to the spot and to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Lodging of first information report under Section 154, Cr. P. C. puts the police machinery in motion to collect the facts. The Legislature has only laid down the criteria that if upon information there is a suspicion regarding the commission of the offence only then investigation may be made. This Section further has taken care of i. e. the police officer find that there is no sufficient ground for not entering into the investigation he shall not investigate the case. It is the duty of the police officer when a suspicion is raised to go on the spat and examine the persons acquainted with the facts of the case under Sections 160 and 161, of Cr. P. C. The powers have been given to the police officer to effect recovery, search of the site, incriminating articles connected with the crime and personal search of the accused. This is a process of collection of facts during investigation.;