'Forcible' Entry To Mosque In Police Line Campus To Offer Namaz: Allahabad HC Declines To Quash Criminal Case Against AIMIM Leader
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) who has been booked inter alia under Section 153B of IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz. A bench of Justice...
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) who has been booked inter alia under Section 153B of IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh further observed that the campus of the police line is a sensitive place where the Armory, District Wireless Control Room Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, and therefore, the public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District.
The case in brief
The Court was essentially dealing with a quashing petition filed by AIMIM district president Israr Ahmad who was booked in a criminal case following a clash with Pratapgarh policemen who refused him to offer Friday prayers at a mosque located on the Reserve Police Lines campus.
It was alleged that the accused persons (including the applicant) forcibly tried to enter the police line by raising several slogans and also made skirmishes with the police personnel while insisting on offering Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus.
Challenging the summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceedings, Ahmad moved the HC inter alia on the grounds that provisions of the 1932 Act are not applicable in district Pratapgarh as there is no notification related to the implementation of the Act.
It was further submitted by his counsel that no sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing the charge sheet against him for the offence under Section 153B IPC, which is mandatory, on which the trial court has taken cognizance.
It was also contended that for a long time, people working near the police line have been offering Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus by taking necessary precautions and hence, there was no reason for the policemen to stop him from entering the police line premises.
Lastly, it was argued that since the mosque is situated in the police line, people should not be deprived of offering the prayer of Jumma in the said mosque.
On the other hand, the AGA, appearing for the state, submitted that the mosque constructed in the police line premises cannot be allowed to the public to offer Namaz/prayer, for the reason that arms and ammunition of the police personnel are being stored in Armory in the police line, moreover, District Wireless Control Room is also situated there and due to several other security reasons, without appropriate permission, public at large cannot be allowed to enter in the police line campus.
Court's observations
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court, at the outset, noted that Section 7 of Act 1932 is applicable in all districts of Uttar Pradesh with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette (June 19, 1968).
Regarding the argument of non-grant of sanction before filing the chargesheet under Section 153B IPC, the Court noted that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh had decided to further investigate the case in question, and he informed the HC that he would take all care and precautions for further investigation of the case in question in just and fair manner.
“In such circumstances, merely on the ground that the sanction was not taken by the Investigating Officer from the competent authority and submitted charge sheet to the Court concerned, on which, Court has taken cognizance, charge sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law,” the Bench noted as it dismissed the quashing plea.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Gyanendra Singh, Ajmal Khan, Javed Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh assisted by AGA Piyush Singh and State Law Officer Shivendra Singh Rathaur
Case title - Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8877 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100