ATIQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, skipping unnecessary details, are that the petitioner is a sitting M.L.A. from Allahabad Constituency. Against him an F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent No. 5 Smt. Urmila Devi on 4-8-2002 at 2.05 p.m., resulting in registering of a case against him under Sections 467/468/471/420/506/384/387, I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. He has filed this writ petition, claiming the following reliefs :

(2.) The F.I.R. filed against him by respondent No. 5 Smt. Urmila Devi is Annexure 16 to the writ petition and it would be relevant to excerpt below the material allegations made therein against him:

(3.) We have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and learned A.G.A. in opposition. We have also carefully examined the record. It has been urged for the petitioner that he does not subscribe to the policies and ideology of the present Chief Minister Sushri Mayawati and he refused to compromise with his principles. It is for this reason that she has made him and his family members the target of all kinds of victimization. It is submitted that she is operating from behind the scene in getting him and his family members implicated in a number of criminal cases under the lead of respondent No. 4 Sri Lalji Shukla, Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad, who has particularly been brought back and posted at Allahabad to achieve this goal. He remained in jail from 15-2-2001 to 21-7-2001 owing to false criminal cases initiated against him including detention under National Security Act which came to be revoked, having not been approved by the Advisory Board. It has also been argued that from 21/07/2001 to 6th June, 2002 there was no complaint or fresh case against him and on contesting the election in February 2002, he again got elected as M.L.A. Sushri Mayawati has come to power as Chief Minister in coalition with Bhartiya Janta Party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the Court's attention to Annexure 3 to the writ petition which is said to be the copy of proceedings of the Legislative Assembly dated 17th May, 2002. It is sought to be emphasized with its help that when the petitioner was pointing out the ideological framework of the present Chief Minister, she threatened that she would ensure that tears would come to his eyes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that he was again arrested on 6-6-2002 in connection with Crime No. 253 of 2002 of P. S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, under various sections of Indian Penal Code and U. P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act on an FIR made by Smt. Jai Shree @ Suraj Kali. Thereafter the series of registering of false cases against him one after the other is continuing and the present F.I.R. is part of the chain. The respondent No. 4 Lalji Shukla, S. P. (City), Allahabad is said to be operating as a tool in the hands of the present Chief Minister who is leaving no stone unturned to ensure the victimization of the petitioner and his family members. According to the learned counsel, the F.I.R. of the present case is false, baseless and outcome of mala fides, having been lodged at the behest of the present Chief Minister of the State who is operating to achieve her goal through respondent No. 4 above named. It is urged that at the best, the F.I.R. makes out a civil wrong. Referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the best the allegations disclosed a civil wrong that Rs. 85,000.00 had been taken from the informant against which a receipt of Rs. 15,000.00 was given, which too was subsequently taken back and that no agreement of sale or sale deed was executed. It has also been urged that the informant Smt. Urmila Devi herself made an application on 6th August 2002 before the special Judge, Gangsters Act/Additional Sessions Judge along with an affidavit stating that she had not made any F.I.R. and that the S.O. of Police Station Dhooman Ganj had compelled her to sign on some plain papers. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was being brought to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in connection with a case pending against him on 7th August, 2002, an assailant had attacked him with hurling of bomb and he sustained injuries. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that local police being completely under the thumb and influence of the ruling Chief Minister of the State who is antagonized against the petitioner, fair investigation is not possible and the same should be directed to be made by some independent agency.