- (1.) The dispute between petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6 dates back to 10th of march 1998, when respondents 3-6 are alleged to have forcibly taken away 350 bags of potatoes valued at more than Rupees one lakh, from the fields of the petitioner by loading the consignment in their tractor-trolley. In order to prevent the petitioner from lodging the First information Report with the Police, respondents 3-6 took the petitioner to their residence and allegedly assaulted him. On the next day, namely, on 11th March, 1998, the petitioner informed the Sr. Superintendent of Police, farrukhabad, about the above incident through a fax message.
(2.) In another incident, which is the incident involved in this case, respondent 3-6 assaulted the petitioner on 29th March, 1998 at 11 A. M. , Rs. 500. 00 which the petitioner had with him at that time was taken-away by respondents 3-6 and they also badly abused the petitioner. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Ram Niwas and Siya Ram. Petitioner immediately went to the Police Station to lodge the report but no action was taken Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Farrukhabad, against, respondents 3-6 on 2nd April, 1998 in respect of the incident of 29th March, 1998. While the application was pending in the court, the petitioner was advised that in respect of the incident in question the court competent to take action was the court of Special Sessions judge, (DAA) , Farrukhabad, and not the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, on 24th June, 1998, petitioner moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the criminal Procedure Code in the court of Special sessions Judge (DAA) , Farrukhabad. On the direction of the Special Sessions Judge (DAA) , Farrukhabad, on 6.7.1998, a case was registered under Section 394/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Farrukhabad, against respondents 3-6 as crime case No. 541/98. The order dated 6.7.1998, by which the learned special Sessions Judge (DAA) , Farrukhabad, had directed Police Station House Officer to register a case against respondents 3-6, was challenged by the latter in the Allahabad High court through a petition (Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 2527 of 1998) under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code On this petition, the High court passed the following order dated 23.7.1998: "Heard the applicants' counsel that in respect of the same incident a criminal complaint has already been filed against the applicants and the same is pending during the pendency of the same complaint, complainant Subhash Chandra also filed application under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code before another court, i. e. the court of Special Judge (D. A. A. ). Farrukhabad, by concealing the fact that he has already moved an application before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Farrukhabad for necessary action by filing an application under Section by filing an application under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code and the C. J. M. refused to order investigation. It is further contended that the local police is inimical to the applicants. The applicants have filed writ petition against the police authorities as well as contempt petition. In short, the argument of the learned counsel is that the complainant by concealing material facts before the Special judge (DAA) , Farrukhabad has succeeded in procuring a favourable order on 6.7.1998, on his application moved under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that the applicants, if so advised, may move before the Special Judge (DAA) Farrukhabad inviting his attention to the aforestated objection and if such an objection is filed, the same shall be decided by Special judge (DAA) Farrukhabad in accordance with law after getting opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The operation of the order dated 6.7.1998 passed by Special Judge (DAA) Farrukhabad shall remain stayed for a period of 10 days in order to enable the applicants to file suitable objection and if such objections are filed, the order shall remain stayed until the objection is disposed of. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. "
(3.) When the matter was taken up by the special Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, on 17-11-1998, he recalled his earlier order dated 6.7.1998 and issued a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why action be not taken against him for concealing the fact that he had earlier filed a complaint in the court of chief Judicial Magistrate which was not mentioned by him in his complaint under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code Petitioner filed his objections to the show cause notice, but the Special Sessions judge (DAA) , Farrukhabad, by order dated 14/15. 01.1999, initiated proceedings against the petitioner for an offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the material facts from the court and had not mentioned that he had earlier filed an application in respect of the same incident before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Farrukhabad. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 2123/99 which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 21.4.1999. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following operative order: "This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that a complaint shall be drafted and lodged against the petitioner in accordance with Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code and other formalities of law under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 195 criminal Procedure Code shall be complied with Orders passed on merits under Section 340 criminal Procedure Code is confirmed. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner shall appear before the special Judge (DAA). Farrukhabad on 10. 5.1999. ";