The Uttarakhand High Court criticised Deepak Kumar for seeking protection and action against police while being a “suspected accused” in an FIR case. The Court called the plea an abuse of process and warned against attempts to influence investigation.
The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday strongly criticised a petition filed by ‘Mohammad’ Deepak Kumar, who recently came into the spotlight after he stood up for a Muslim shopkeeper allegedly harassed by right-wing activists. The Court observed that Kumar, who is currently facing an FIR, was trying to put undue pressure on the police and interfere with the investigation process.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal was hearing Kumar’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him based on a complaint by right-wing activists. During the hearing, the Court questioned the maintainability of the petition, especially the additional reliefs sought by Kumar, including protection from threats and a departmental inquiry against police officials.
The Court expressed serious concern over the nature of the petition and remarked,
“This is complete abuse of process. The person who is an accused is praying for protection? They [police] are competent. Trust them. You are a suspected accused,”
making it clear that an accused person cannot seek such reliefs while being under investigation.
The Bench also took strong objection to Kumar’s request for initiating departmental action against police officers, calling it inappropriate and legally untenable. It observed,
“What type of prayer is this? Can you pray for this. This is a pressure tactic. I will dismiss with exemplary costs on the petitioner. When you file petition, you should keep in your mind who are you and what is your status in the petition. Your status is of suspected accused. A person who is a suspected accused praying for departmental inquiry.. A suspected accused is praying for protection,”
highlighting that such prayers go beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Further, the Court noted that Kumar appeared to be attempting to sensationalise the matter by adding multiple reliefs in his plea. It remarked,
“Aap is matter ko sensitize karne ki koshish kar rahe ho by praying for all these additional prayers. Lesson should go,”
indicating that such attempts to create public attention would not be entertained by the Court.
ALSO READ: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
The Bench also pointed out that filing such a petition places unnecessary pressure on the police authorities and could potentially influence the investigation. It stated,
“Aap ne kis situation main daala tha [What situation have you put them in]. That was in their mind that such type of petition is there, that they [petitioner] are asking for inquiry against police officers. You created this situation. You are attempting to influence the investigation,”
underlining the importance of allowing the police to carry out their duties independently.
During the hearing, Advocate Navnish Negi, appearing for Kumar, argued that his client had only tried to calm the situation during the incident involving alleged hate speech and criminal intimidation. He also referred to complaints filed by Kumar and others against members of Bajrang Dal. However, the Court advised the counsel to focus strictly on the legal reliefs sought rather than narrating the entire background of the case.
The Court further questioned whether such reliefs could even be granted under writ jurisdiction and observed,
“Can you pray this in writ jurisdiction? You are praying for prosecuting them,”
pointing out that the petition was going beyond its permissible scope.
On the issue of police protection, the Court reiterated that maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State and the police are legally bound to ensure safety. It said,
“In prayer number 1, you are praying for quashing of FIR and then praying for protection to a person who is a suspected accused? As on date, your status is as suspected accused and then you are praying for protection? Suppose Court grants protection, how can they [police] investigate,”
emphasizing the contradiction in Kumar’s plea.
The State, in its submissions, informed the Court that there was no specific threat perception against Kumar. Although Kumar’s counsel claimed that he was receiving continuous threats, the Court maintained that the police are obligated to protect every individual’s life and liberty, including that of an accused.
Reinforcing this position, the Court stated,
“So praying for protection after impugned FIR is abuse of process. Trust them,”
once again stressing that such requests are unnecessary and legally improper.
ALSO READ: 76 Lawyers Designated as Senior Advocates by Punjab and Haryana High Court
In a broader observation, the Court remarked that certain cases have the potential to disturb societal harmony and must be handled carefully. It noted,
“Ek chingari (one spark), I took serious cognizance in matter of ‘I love Muhammad’. Investigation was so faulty… I ordered further investigation. I will apply my judicial mind,”
indicating that the judiciary remains vigilant in ensuring fair investigations.
Although the Court expressed its inclination to dismiss the petition due to the nature of the reliefs sought, it granted Kumar’s counsel time to verify certain aspects of the case. The matter has now been adjourned and is scheduled to be heard again on Friday.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Vantara
