Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh And 33 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved on 26.04.2022
Delivered on 29.04.2022
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2463 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh And 33 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrita Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos.2 to 7 to not to harass unnecessarily and calling the petitioners to the Police Station except when required under the provisions of Cr.P.C.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos.2 to take appropriate action to redress the grievances of the petitioners ventilated in representations dated 07.01.2022 (as contained Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition)."
The petitioners who are 34 in numbers are either franchisees or commission agents of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited and Sahara India Corporation Limited and other affidavits belonging to the Sahara Group.
It is alleged that on account of the petitioners being functionaries of the Sahara Group, they are facing harassment at the hands of the police and are being repeatedly summoned to the police stations and are also being pressurized to return the money deposited by investors through them.
On the petition being filed learned AGA has been directed to obtain instructions.
On the basis of instructions received, learned AGA has submitted that no case is registered against any of the petitioners in District Jalaun and that no proceedings have been drawn against them. Neither they have been summoned to the police stations.
A copy of the instructions received by learned AGA was made available to learned counsel for the petitioners and in response to the instructions, a supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today.
In the supplementary affidavit in paragraph 6 and 7, it has been stated that petitioner no. 2, Rahul Agrawal and petitioner no. 5, Abhishek Kumar were summoned to the police station on various dates and were made to sit there for long periods of time as was petitioner no. 30 on an alleged complaint by one Mamta. He was forcibly asked to record a compromise, copy whereof is filed as Annexure SA-1.
From a perusal of the said document, it, prima-facie, cannot be said that the said compromise has either been recorded at the instance of the police personnel or at the police station. It is no doubt true that it is in the form of a letter, which is addressed to the Chowki Incharge, Orai at Jalaun. This document therefore does not prove the allegations made in paragraph 11 of the supplementary affidavit.
The supplementary affidavit has also annexed thereto, an order passed by the Delhi High Court, on a petition filed on behalf of Sahara Group Co-Operative Society and Saharian Universal Multi Purpose Society. In the said bunch of petitions a show cause notice issued by the Central Registrar, under Section 86 of the Multi State Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002 were under challenge. The said judgment therefore does not help the petitioners in any manner as it is clearly distinguishable on facts.
Another order dated 16.09.2020 has been annexed along with the writ petition, which is an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The relief claimed in the writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was similar to the relief claimed in the instant writ petition, namely that the respondents in the said writ petition be restrained from unnecessarily harassing and calling the petitioners to the police station except when required under Cr.P.C., to do so.
In the instant writ petition, also it has been averred that representations have been made by the petitioners to the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun. In the representations annexed which are all similarly worded and are at the instance of some of the petitioners in this writ petition, it is stated that the person making the representation acted as an agent and a bridge between investors and the Sahara India Group. Invested money is not being returned to the investors on account of pendency of a court case. Therefore, complaints are being made to the police and the agents are being summoned to the police station, although no FIR is registered against them.
The relief prayed for cannot be granted because the police has unfattered powers of investigation, which cannot be circumcised by general directions. However, since it is the case of learned AGA that no criminal case is pending against any of the petitioners, there is no justification for issuing the general directions prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition appears to have been filed more out of apprehensions than on the basis of concrete facts. In the light of the facts noticed above, we do no find it a fit case for allowing prayer no. 1 in the writ petition.
However, the respondent no. 2 is expected to consider the representations filed by the petitioners, copy of which are annexed to this petition and, in case required, appropriate directions be issued to police personnel.
Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.04.2022
Mayank
