S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) A first information report was lodged on 9 -3 -91 in the police station Kotwali Etawah by Hari Prasad wherein Raj Kishore, son of Shiv Raj Singh, R.K. Singh alias Prithvi son of Seva Singh, Rajesh Chaubey alias Bare Lal, son of Radhey Shyam and Ram Sewak Tripathi were accused of having committed offences envisaged under sections 366/368/364, IPC. The allegations made in the FIR were, that accused had kidnapped the Petitioner from lawful guardianship seducing her to compel her marriage and were wrongfully keeping her in confinement. While the investigation proceedings started on the basis of the aforesaid FIR were in progress, the present writ petition was filed on 3 -4 -91 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid FIR and a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take the Petitioner in their custody. The Petitioner further prayed for the issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to get her medically examined or obtain any statement from her under Section 161 or 164 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition an application was filed by Hari Prasad Dwivedi praying for his impleadment as an opposite party in the writ petition and for permission to contest the writ petition by filing a counter -affidavit. Hari Prasad filed a counter -affidavit and in reply thereto the Petitioner has filed her rejoinder affidavit. In the circumstances of the case there is no justification for granting the application for impleadment. However taking into consideration the nature of the controversy involved in the case, we have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the proposed opposite party in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the rules of this Court. The allegations made in the FIR a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, are against the four accused persons viz Raj Kishore, R.K. Singh alias Prithvi, Rajesh Chaubey alias Bare Lal and Ram Sewak, none of whom have joined the Petitioner in this writ petition. In this view of the matter a preliminary objection has been raised challenging the maintainability of the writ petition so far as the relief in regard to the quashing of the first information report in question is concerned.
(3.) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution of India in terms does not describe the class of persons entitled to apply there under but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under the aforesaid provision that the relief sought for must be one to enforce a legal right. The legal right that can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the Petitioner, the infraction of which right, may necessitate approaching this Court for relief. This legal position stands amply clarified by the apex court in its decision in the case of Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal : AIR 1962 SC 1044.;