LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-247

MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 05, 1997
MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has prayed for quashing an F.I.R. dated 9.2.1997 lodged at P. S. Colonel Ganj, Allahabad, in case Crime No. 139 of 1997 under Sections 161 and 165A, I.P.C. and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act {State v. Brij Bhushan and others). THEre has been a further prayer that during investigation of the aforesaid case, the applicant may be given protection against arrest.

(2.) IT is necessary to state the background of the F.I.R. A matrimonial suit had been pending before the Family Court at Allahabad between respondent No. 2, Dr. Lal Bahadur Maurya (in short. Dr. Maurya) and his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi. Dr. Maurya was not satisfied with certain proceedings of the Family Court in the aforesaid case and he made certain complaints to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. One of the grievances of Dr. Maurya was that he was not being given the certified copy of the orders despite his proper application. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice gave a personal hearing to Dr. Maurya and, thereafter, under his orders, the District Judge in-charge at Allahabad intimated the Family Court to look into that aspect of the complaint of Dr. Maurya which covered alleged demand of illegal gratification from Dr. Maurya by the present applicant, Mohd. Shakeel, and certain other Staff of the family court. The Judge of the Family Court made certain examinations of Dr. Maurya and, thereafter, he lodged an F.I.R. not only against his assistants named in the statement of Dr. Maurya but also against Dr. Maurya himself for offences under Sections 161 and 165A, I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (old provision). This F.I.R. is under challenge in the present application.

(3.) THE instant application was presented on 11.3.1997 and was put up two days thereafter when Dr. Maurya was directed to be noticed and an interim order was passed staying the arrest of the applicant In the concerned case Crime No. 139 of 1997. This interim order was extended from time to time and is still under operation.