The Allahabad High Court has rejected a plea by two goldsmiths seeking state protection and a restraint on future police complaints against them, ruling that granting security to individuals with criminal antecedents would diminish public confidence in the legal system.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II stated that courts should exercise extreme caution when considering protection requests from individuals whose safety concerns arise from their own conduct. The bench further noted that issuing general directions to restrain police from lodging First Information Reports (FIRs) would violate the statutory framework of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and constitute judicial overreach.
Statutory Obligations and Investigative Powers
Addressing allegations of police harassment, the court clarified that routine investigative procedures do not amount to unlawful custody, torture, or intimidation. The bench noted that law enforcement officers are legally required to visit crime scenes, record witness statements, and question named suspects during an active investigation once a cognisable offence is reported.
The judges emphasized that an investigating officer’s visit to a suspect’s premises cannot automatically be viewed as pre-planned collusion with a complainant.
Case Background and State Opposition
The two petitioners, who face a total of six pending criminal cases, had filed a writ petition under Article 226. They sought directions to prevent a local station house officer from registering further FIRs or summoning them, while also requesting police protection for themselves and their families. The petitioners contended that business rivals had repeatedly orchestrated false criminal complaints against them.
State counsel opposed the prayers, arguing that police are duty-bound to register FIRs upon receiving information regarding cognisable offences. The state maintained that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to grant blanket immunity against future investigations. Although the petition initially cited three FIRs, a supplementary affidavit brought three additional pending cases to light.
Legal Remedies Available
In its order dated July 17, the court concluded that the threat perception cited by the petitioners was primarily self-created due to ongoing rivalries and their existing criminal background. While dismissing the petition, the bench clarified that its ruling would not restrict the petitioners from seeking other legal remedies provided under the law regarding pending FIRs or future criminal proceedings.
