Police protection for criminal case accused sends wrong signal: Allahabad High Court

“If this Court directs to give police protection for the petitioner, it will send a wrong signal to the society and a normal citizen should not get an impression that people with criminal background are also provided with police protection. If such an impression is created, they will lose their faith in the existing system. Thus, we are not inclined to provide security to the petitioners as requested by them,” the order dated July 17 read.

Plea for protection

The petitioners had alleged that rival goldsmiths repeatedly got false criminal cases registered against them and they were repeatedly called to the police station. They sought directions to a station house officer not to harass them or register FIRs against them, besides requesting police protection for themselves and their families.

Opposing the plea, the state argued that once information regarding the commission of a cognisable offence is received, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR and investigate. It contended that Article 226 (power of high courts to issue writs), jurisdiction cannot be invoked to obtain blanket protection against possible future FIRs.

Justices Rajiv Gupta and Dr Ajay Kumar-II said a police officer is bound to investigate an alleged crime when an FIR is registered.

The court observed that an investigating officer is duty-bound to investigate the crime by visiting the spot and taking statements of the witnesses whenever an FIR is registered. It added that if the police officers’ visit to a residence cannot be treated either as pre-planning or collusion between the personnel and the informant.

The bench remarked that calling a named accused to the police station for the purpose of questioning in an ongoing investigation cannot be treated as keeping him under unlawful custody or torturing him or threatening him or taking some illegal action against him.

It noted that, apart from the three FIRs disclosed in the writ petition, three more FIRs had been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit, making a total of six criminal cases pending against the petitioners.

‘Threat tied to petitioners’ conduct’

The court observed that any perceived threat appeared to stem from the petitioners’ own activities. It stressed that high courts cannot issue general directions restraining the registration of FIRs, saying such an order would be contrary to the statutory framework of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and would amount to judicial overreach.

Six FIRs have been lodged against the petitioners by various informants or complainants and therefore, threat perception, if any, primarily seems to be a result of the petitioners’ own activities, the court stated, adding, “The petitioners are having a background of criminal cases pending against them. The probable enmity / rivalry between the petitioners and private respondents seems to be due to their (petitioners) own activities.”

It dismissed the plea, but clarified that its order would not prevent the petitioners from pursuing any other remedies available under law in relation to the pending FIRs or any future criminal proceedings.