- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed on 20.7.2011 and it was listed today for admission/hearing.
(2.) AFTER hearing Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perusal of the record, we dismissed the writ petition as perusal of the FIR prima -facie shows commission of cognizable offences but the Counsel for the Petitioners insisted that the reasons should be assigned for dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, it was provided that reasons will be dictated later on, as today this Court is loaded with heavy rush of work as it has also been assigned the work of another court too. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: (I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the report of opposite party No. 2 if any after summoning the same from concerned Respondents. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Chief Justice to hold inquiry against opposite party No. 2 and to proceed under Contempt of Courts Act against the said Respondent No. 2. (III) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 3 to conduct inquiry in the matter afresh in compliance of the Hon'ble Court order dated 08 -04 -2011 passed in writ petition No. 1922(MB) of 1997. (IV) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the first information report registered at case crime No. 1165 of 2011 Under Sections 409/419/420/421/467/468/471 IPC at Police station Kotwali Nagar Sultnapur contained as Annexure No. 8 of writ petition. (V) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 4 not to arrest the Petitioners in Case Crime No. 1165/2011 Under Sections 409/419/420/421/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar Sultanpur. (VI) To pass any other suitable order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. (VII) To allow the writ petition with costs.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner has contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged without conducting any inquiry and also submitted that the allegations against the Petitioner are wholly false and incorrect. Now, on the basis of the FIR, the police is harassing Petitioners and it is apprehended that they would be arrested without any rhyme and reason.;