MANOHAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHAHDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OCCASIONS are not rare when ex facie innocuous petition preferred invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. encompass enormous and eloquent controversy expositing the proclivity to settle scores in a Court of law which sometimes gets reflected in course of hearing of a petition and sometimes the litigant makes a further innocent prayer seeking withdrawal of the petition on the plea of lack of knowledge or information at the time of presentation of the writ petition or maybe in an adroit design which the law immediately does not verify and grant the permission of withdrawal. The purpose of saying the aforesaid is that the petitioner Manohar Singh s/o Phool Singh Thakur being personally present sought leave of this Court to withdraw the petition on the ground which I shall advert to later on.

(2.) MR. Radhey Lal Gupta, learned counsel rose to canvass the case of Manohar Singh seeking withdrawal of the present writ petition but he fairly conceded that he has not obtained any consent or no objection from the counsel who had been earlier engaged and on a query being made whether he could be able to address the Court without the consent of the learned counsel who had been earlier engaged, he fairly stated that without obtaining no objection from the previous counsel, he cannot canvass the cause of the petitioner. However, he has argued by submitting that, petitioner sought consent from the counsel but the same was refused and hence, having no other option he has stood up on behalf of the petitioner to seek withdrawal of the petition. The question that falis for consideration at this juncture whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the petition. Ordinarily such orders are passed without much deliberation but occasions do warrant when withdrawal sought for by the litigant may be refused so that he cannot choose to approach the Court whenever he desires and take leave to withdraw as his proclivity commands. A litigant is expected to remember that Court of law is riot a laboratory where children come to play. It is also not a closed room where he can afford to play a game of chess. Both the contingencies are not countenanced in a Court of law and are scrupulously ostracised. As the factual scenario exposits a different picture altogether and an attempt has been made to waste the time of this Court without having any thought to understand the process of law and approach has been made with a determined intention to drag people to Court of law to get publicity I am not inclined to grant any permission or leave to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Hence, I proceed to deal with the matter on the merits of the case.

(3.) SANS unnecessary details the facts which are essential for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Khattadih, Tah and Distt. Mahasamund in the State of Chhattisgarh. He has lodged an F. I. R. as contained in Annexure P-2 before the S. P. Shahdol and Station House Officer, Shahdol purported to be under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) that the respondent No. 3, Shrj Ajit Jogi, has obtained a forged certificate from the Nayab Tahsil-dar, Pendra on 6-6-97 to the effect that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and is utilising the same at various levels including contesting in the election. The grievance is that such an FIR has been lodged making out cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'ipc') but no investigation has been done and the respondent 2 has given the FIR a decent burial contrary to the mandate of the law. It has been placed on record that the petitioner got knowledge about such aspect from one pamphlet recently published which has been brought on record. I refrain myself from referring to the aforesaid pamphlet because the same does not require to be stated for the purpose of adjudication of this case.