NARGIS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, A. C. J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the police authorities from harassing, humiliating, or paying domiciliary visits to the premises of the petitioners or to effect forcible closure of the petitioners' business under the garb of apprehending Shakir, Son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 6 in a criminal case. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to them for the harassment caused.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and we have perused the same. It appears that out of 11 criminal accused in the criminal case 7 were arrested but four have not yet been arrested. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that on four occasions Shakir has runaway from the police lock-up, but the police authorities have not visited either the petitioners' house or shop. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were in close league and conspiracy with the accused, who escaped. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 6, father of Shakir, is doing pairvi on his behalf. It is alleged in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit that the police authorities have never harassed any person after the four visits mentioned above to search Shakir. It is denied that the authorities have used abusive language. It is also denied that they threatened the petitioners to falsely implicate them.