Fir

. The petitioner argues that the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry towards
ascertaining whether any cognizable offence had been made out against her. Moreover, the
petitioner submits that even if all the averments in the complaint and the FIR are accepted, no
offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner

Taslima Nasrin vs State of UP

[W.P.(Crl) No. 222 of 2013
In A.I.R. 2003 SC 2686 (Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by L.Rs. and Another Vs B.D. Agarwal and Others )
a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court derives its jurisdiction in terms of
Art.226 of the Constitution of India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make judicial review of the order
passed by a statutory authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can be issued if the disputes involve
private law character. Even the Supreme Court declared that such type of orders are without jurisdiction
and as such is a nullity.

According to us both the civil and criminal disputes are of private nature. The basic difference is when an
aggrieved himself brings a civil dispute and accused is brought by the police or complainant in the
criminal dispute. But nature of adjudication of trial in both, are private in nature. Therefore once the
Court had taken cognizance, casual interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is improper. It is far to say
about applicability of Article 227 as an alternative measure having presence of remedy under the
Statute. Similarly on the other hand at the stage of investigation also, making application under Article
226 for quashing the FIR as a matter of course is improper. We live in system which should not be
disbelieved so casually otherwise system will fall down. It is a tactical ploy to make an application both
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to drive to court on both sides either about investigation of the
police before taking cognizance by the Court or other investigation when cognizance has been taken by
the appropriate court even being forgetful that a separate procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Is
available for the High Court. Power under Article 227 can not be used as a power of convenience.

Issue 2

The Supreme Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights4, has finally decided the matter
and upheld the constitutionality of the statute

The Court has denied the unconstitutionality of Sections 4 and 5 on the ground that they violate Articles
14, 19 and 21.22

In the Indrajit Barua vs The State Of Assam And Anrxix case, the Delhi High Court
found that the state has the duty to assure the protection of rights under Article 21 to
the largest number of people. Couched in the rhetoric of the need to protect the
“greater good”, it is clear that the Court did not feel that Article 21 is a fundamental
right for the people of Assam. The Court stated, “If to save hundred lives one life is
put in peril or if a law ensures and protects the greater social interest then such law
will be a wholesome and beneficial law although it may infringe the liberty of some
individuals.”
the Gauhati High court found this decision to be binding in People’s Union for Democratic
Rights

Peoples Union For Human Rights ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 March,
1991
Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 Gau 23

Issue 3

Entry 2A, List I reads:14 “Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to
control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power, powers,
jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment.” The
Centre may, in order to ensure the maintenance of public order, choose to deploy its armed forces or
any other force under its control “in aid of the civil power.”15 The phrase “in aid of the civil power” in
this entry indicates that in order to help and supplement the efforts of the state forces in restoring
public order, Centre may deploy its forces. It is required that the Central forces and the state authorities
act in tandem for this purpose.