RAVI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is placed on record.

(2.) WE have perused the notice and its contents. The grounds, which have been made use of to extern the petitioner, are based upon two cases. One is Crime No. 148 of 1986 under Sections 452, 323, 504/506 I.P.C. and the other is Crime No. 15 of 2002 under Sections 323, 504/506 I.P.C. Out of these two cases, first case has been concluded in favour of the petitioner. There remained thus only a petty offence. In view of these facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no justification for issuing a show -cause notice to the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act. This is nothing but a gross abuse of the provisions of the abovesaid Act by the local authorities i.e. the sponsoring authority and the District Magistrate. It exhibits complete absence or lack of application of mind by the District Magistrate. The approach of the sponsoring authority clearly is not only malicious but also capricious. The liberty of a citizen can not be jeopardised in such a manner. The conduct of these officials is highly deprecated and disapproved. There are clear allegations against the officer who sponsored the action in the writ petition. In our opinion police officers sometimes act vindictively. Such incidents are on the rise phenomenally. They call for an exemplary action in the form of imposition of heavy cost upon such police personal. Presently we refrain from imposition of any cost upon the errant police officer. We sound a note of caution to all these officers who abuse the law to wreak vengeance against any citizen wantonly. For long this Court cannot refrain from doing the same.