Allahabad HC Imposes ₹20K Cost On Man Who Sought Reiteration Of A General Mandamus Regarding Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on a person who sought reiteration of a general mandamus, which has already been issued by the High Court in the case of Vimal Kumar and three others Vs. State of U.P. and three others 2021.

It may be noted that in the Vimal Kumar case, the Allahabad High Court had directed the Police authorities to desist from making automatic/ routine arrests, especially in dowry cases (498A IPC), and strictly comply with the pre-conditions laid down under Section 41A of CrPC.

[NOTE: Section 41A of CrPC provides that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) (When police may arrest without warrant), the Police shall issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.]

Read more about the Vimal Kumar case here: Section 41A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Issues Slew Of Direction To Ensure Compliance Of Safeguards From Arbitrary Arrest In 498A Cases

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma was dealing with a writ petition which prayed for quashing of the impugned first information report registered against the petitioner under Sections 380, 411 I.P.C.

However, the only submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that he cannot be arrested, since, it is settled law that in a case where the sentence is less than 7 years, the police has to first issue a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. before arresting the petitioner.

Further, the Counsel prayed for directions similar to those issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the Vimal Kumar case. The petitioner essentially prayed for reiteration of the general mandamus, which has already been issued by the High Court.

Against this backdrop, the Court, at the outset, observed that there is no provision that provides for the issuance of repeated mandamus by the High Court, and that too in a case where there is no foundation in the pleadings as to why the said mandamus requires to be reiterated.

Further, the Court also remarked thus:

"It is our experience invariably writ petitions are being filed seeking quashing of first information reports, which disclose or contain ingredients of cognizable offence and therefore in view of the settled law, which first information report cannot be quashed. Once, such observation is made by the Court, it is invariably prayed that a direction be issued in the case of Vimal Kumar (supra) be issued...In effect, writ petitions are being filed for seeking quashing of the first information report not because they have substance but only to obtain a direction as has been issued in the case of Vimal Kumar."

In view of this, the Court stressed that there won't be any justification for issuance of or reiteration of directions or a general mandamus already issued by the Court as was being sought in the instant writ petition and in many other petitions that have come up before this Court.

"Since, a general mandamus has been issued by the writ Court, which is necessarily required to be complied with, there is no justification for reiterating the same as is prayed by counsel for the petitioner," the Court added as it dismissed the writ plea.

Significantly, the Court also imposed a cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the petitioner for wasting the precious time of the Court by seeking reiteration of a general mandamus, which has already been issued by the High Court.

Case title - Juber v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1135 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 202

Click Here To Read/Download Order