Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Prakash vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 7 June, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3065 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jitendra Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarth Saxena,Trideep Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
C.M. Application No.2 of 2022 (withdrawal application)
The present withdrawal application has been filed for withdrawing the present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner through his counsel Shri Deepankar Kumar.
From the perusal of the order sheet it transpires that on 24.05.2022 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
List this case on 30.07.2022 in the additional cause list.
In the meanwhile, learned A.G.A. is directed to seek instructions in this case."
When we made a pointed query to learned counsel for the petitioner the reason for withdrawing the present writ petition, he stated that the prayer made in the present writ petition is a defective one and further certain developments have taken place, hence the same be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh.
Considering the fact that this Court has already taken cognizance on the prayer made in the writ petition and vide order dated 24.05.2022 called for instructions from learned AGA and fixed the date as 30.07.2022, we fail to understand as to why the petitioner wants to withdraw the same.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter or allow the withdrawal application of the petitioner and the matter be listed on 30.07.2022, as has been ordered by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022.
The withdrawal application of the petitioner (C.M. Application No.2 of 2022) is accordingly rejected.
After passing of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to address this Court on merits of the case, hence, we proceed to hear the writ petition on merits.
The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to start an enquiry in the matter, lodging FIR against the opposite party no.3 to 5 and initiating proper departmental action against respondent no. 3 to 5.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of 10 lacs to the petitioner.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged as FIR No. 83 of 2022, under sections 392 IPC, police station Qaiserbagh, Western Police Commissionerate, District Lucknow.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to comply with the judgment and directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others; Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3543 of 2020.
(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in any manner within the peaceful life of the petitioner and do not even try to harass and torture them."
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and the petitioner is being harassed for the same by the police personnel, hence he has come up before this Court with the prayer as made above.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is involved in the chain snatching and there appears to be evidence collected against the petitioner during the course of investigation. He further submitted that without challenging the FIR of Case Crime No.83 of 2022 under Section 392 IPC, the petitioner has prayed for staying of his arrest, which has been annexed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR, we are of the opinion that considering the allegations levelled therein of chain snatching of a lady for which she lodged the FIR under Section 392 IPC, the investigation is underway and further for the other prayers made in the writ petition by the petitioner, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 7.6.2022
Arnima
