M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) The facts, skipping unnecessary details, are that the petitioner is a sitting M.L.A. from Allahabad Constituency. Against him an F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent No. 5 Smt. Urmila Devi on 4-8-2002 at 2.05 p.m., resulting in registering of a case against him under Sections 467/468/471/420/506/384/387, I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. He has filed this writ petition, claiming the following reliefs : "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the first information report and further proceedings of Case Crime No. 311 of 2002, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 384, 387, I.P.C. and 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, dated 4-8-2002, so far as it relates to the petitioner, (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition. (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking the petitioner into judicial custody in respect of Case Crime No. 311 of 2002 under Sections 420, 467, 368, 471, 506, 384, 387, I.P.C. and 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, dated 4-8-2002 till the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties directing the respondent No. 1 to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 311 of 2002, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 384, 387, I.P.C. and 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, dated 4-8-2002 by some independent agency which may be free from the influence of the present Chief Minister who has taken the pledge on the floor of the house on 17-5-2002 to take the tears out of the eyes of the petitioner. (iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, to which the petitioner may be found entitled in law. (iv) allow this writ petition with special costs in favour of the petitioner, throughout."
(2.) The F.I.R. filed against him by respondent No. 5 Smt. Urmila Devi is Annexure 16 to the writ petition and it would be relevant to excerpt below the material allegations made therein against him: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HAM LOGON NE MAKAN BANANE KE LIYE JAMIN KI TALASH KI. HAM LOG SULEM SARAI KE AS PAS HI MAKAN BANANA CHAHTE THE JAMIN KE SILSILE MEIN ALKA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI KE KARYALAYA PREETAM NAGAR MARG KE MOR PAR GAYEE. SAMITI KE SANCHALAK RAFAT ULLAH SE MILKAR JAMIN KHARIDNE KI BAAT BATAI JINHONE MUJHE JHALWA MEIN JAMIN DILANE KA VACHAN DIYA. RAFATULLAH PUTRA RAHMATULLAH NIVASI 79, CHAKIA MUJHE LEKAR TATKAL VIDHAYAK SHAHAR PASCHIMI ATTEEQ AHMAD KE NIVAS PAR GAYE JAHAN ATEEQ AHMAD AUR ACHCHHEY URF RUKHSAR MIYAN BAITHEY THE DONO NE GRAM JHALWA STHIT ARAJI SANKHYA 95 MEIN 850/- PRATI VARG GAJ KE DAR SE 100 VARG GAJ JAMIN RS. 85,000.00 MEIN DENA SWEEKAR KIYA. DOOSRE DIN DINANK 3.11.2000 KO MAIN APANE PATI Sri PARAS NATH YADAV KE SAATH ATEE AHMAD KE AVAS PAR GAYI JAHAN RAFATULLAH AUR ACHHEY MIAN URF RUKHSAR MIYAN KI MAUJUDGI MEIN 85000/- NAGAD DIYA JISE VIDHYAK ATEE AHMAD NE RAFAT ULLAH SE GINVAYA AUR APNE PAS RAKH LIYA, USI SAMAY ATEEQ AHMAD KE AVAS PAR KUCHH LOG BAITHE THE JISME SE DO LOGON KO ACHCHHI TARAH SE JANATI PAHCHANTI HUN. JINKE NAAM ALI AKBAR PUTRA AFZALAN TATHA AKRAM PUTRA MUTURZA NIWASIGAN BHITI THANA DHOOMANGANJ ALLAHABAD BHEE MAUJUD THE MUJHE ATEEQ AHMED KE KAHNE PAR RAFAT ULLAH NE SAHKRI AVAS SAMITI KE NAAM SE CHHAPI RASEED 15000 RUPAYE KI DIYA PURI RAKAM KEE RASEED MANGANE PAR ATIOUE, ACHCHHEY TATHA RAFAT NE DHAMKA KAR KAHA KI JAMIN SE MATLAB RAKHO RASEED SE NAHI. BARE LONGO KE AAGE MAIN CHUP CHAP RAHI. DUSARE DIN RAFAT ULLAH AUR ACHCHHE MINYA MERE NIWAS PAR AAYE AUR JHALWA KEE ARAZI NO. 95 PAR LAYE AUR 100 VARG GAJ JAMIN NAP KAR CHINH LAGWA DIYA. MAINE JAMIN MILNE KE EK SAPTAH BAD NIRMAN SHURU KAR DIYA AUR BOUNDARY, KAMRE BANWAKAR PARIWAR KE SATH RAHATI RAHI. LEKIN MUJHE IS JAMIN KE BAINAME KI CHINTA BARABAR BANI RAHI MAINE JAB BHI RAGISTRY YA AGREEMENT KI BAT KAHI TO ATEEQ AHMED VIDHAYAK AUR RAFAT ULLAH VA ACHCHHE MINYA NE DANTKAR CHUP KARA DIYA UN LONGO NE MUJHE 85000/- RUPAYE KI RASEED BHI NANHI DEE. JAB MUJHE PATA CHALA KI JIS JAMIN PAR MERA GHAR BANA HAI US JAMIN KE BARE MEN JAISHREE URF SURAJ KALI NAAM KI AURAT MUKDAMA LAR RAHI HAI. TAB SE MUJHE JAMIN KE BAINAMA KARANE KI CHINTA BADH GAYEE AUR MAINE KUCHH DIN PURV ACHCHHE MINYA SE BAINAMA KARNE VA PAISE KEE RASEED KE BARE MEN NIVEDAN KIYA TO ACHCHHE MINYA NE DANT KAR KAHA KI US JAMIN KE BARE MEIN MANIK CHAND NE NABI ANWAR AADI SE IKRARNAMA KIYA HAI VIDHAYAK JI ABHI JAIL MEN HAIN UNSE PUCHHKAR KOI NIRNAY KARUNGA BAR-BAR BAINAMA KE LIYE KAHOGI TO RAHNE NIHIN DUNGA PURA PARIWAR GAYAB KAR DUNGA. AAJ RAFAT ULLAH VA ACHCHHE MINYA MERE GHAR PAR AAYE AUR MUJHSE KAHA KI 15000/- WALI RASEED DO NANHI TUMHARE PURE PARIWAR KO SAMAPT KAR DENGE PRARTHINI NE DAR KAR MOOL RASEED JO IN LONGO NE DEE THEE UNKO DE DEE TATHA USKI PHOTOCOPY PRARTHANI KE PAS HAI PRARTHANI TATHA USKA PARIWAR BAHUT DARA HUAA HAI KYONKI PRARTHANI SE USKI MOOL RASEED BHI YEH LOG LE GAYE. AB MUJHE VISHWAS HO GAYA HAI KI ATIOUE AHMED VIDHAYAK NE MUJHE DHOKHA DEKAR BEIMANI KEE NIYAT SE PAISA LEKAR HARAP LIYA HAI. AUR KAM PAISE KEE RASEED APNE SAHYOGINYO SE DILWAYA HAI. IN LONGO KA EK SANGATHIT GIROH HAI HAMARI HI TARAH KAI LONGO KE SATH DHOKHA DHARI KARKE ATHWA DARA DHAMKA KAR PAISA LE LIYA HAI. ISKE BHAY VA ATANK SE KOI BHEE VYAKTI GAWAHI DENE KO TAIYAR NANHI HAI. YEH LOG NISHCHIT MERE PARIWAR KO MAR DENGE YA GAYAB KARWA DENGE. . . . . . . . . . . ."
(3.) We have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and learned A.G.A. in opposition. We have also carefully examined the record. It has been urged for the petitioner that he does not subscribe to the policies and ideology of the present Chief Minister Sushri Mayawati and he refused to compromise with his principles. It is for this reason that she has made him and his family members the target of all kinds of victimization. It is submitted that she is operating from behind the scene in getting him and his family members implicated in a number of criminal cases under the lead of respondent No. 4 Sri Lalji Shukla, Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad, who has particularly been brought back and posted at Allahabad to achieve this goal. He remained in jail from 15-2-2001 to 21-7-2001 owing to false criminal cases initiated against him including detention under National Security Act which came to be revoked, having not been approved by the Advisory Board. It has also been argued that from 21/07/2001 to 6th June, 2002 there was no complaint or fresh case against him and on contesting the election in February 2002, he again got elected as M.L.A. Sushri Mayawati has come to power as Chief Minister in coalition with Bhartiya Janta Party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the Court's attention to Annexure 3 to the writ petition which is said to be the copy of proceedings of the Legislative Assembly dated 17th May, 2002. It is sought to be emphasized with its help that when the petitioner was pointing out the ideological framework of the present Chief Minister, she threatened that she would ensure that tears would come to his eyes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that he was again arrested on 6-6-2002 in connection with Crime No. 253 of 2002 of P. S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, under various sections of Indian Penal Code and U. P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act on an FIR made by Smt. Jai Shree @ Suraj Kali. Thereafter the series of registering of false cases against him one after the other is continuing and the present F.I.R. is part of the chain. The respondent No. 4 Lalji Shukla, S. P. (City), Allahabad is said to be operating as a tool in the hands of the present Chief Minister who is leaving no stone unturned to ensure the victimization of the petitioner and his family members. According to the learned counsel, the F.I.R. of the present case is false, baseless and outcome of mala fides, having been lodged at the behest of the present Chief Minister of the State who is operating to achieve her goal through respondent No. 4 above named. It is urged that at the best, the F.I.R. makes out a civil wrong. Referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the best the allegations disclosed a civil wrong that Rs. 85,000.00 had been taken from the informant against which a receipt of Rs. 15,000.00 was given, which too was subsequently taken back and that no agreement of sale or sale deed was executed. It has also been urged that the informant Smt. Urmila Devi herself made an application on 6th August 2002 before the special Judge, Gangsters Act/Additional Sessions Judge along with an affidavit stating that she had not made any F.I.R. and that the S.O. of Police Station Dhooman Ganj had compelled her to sign on some plain papers. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was being brought to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in connection with a case pending against him on 7th August, 2002, an assailant had attacked him with hurling of bomb and he sustained injuries. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that local police being completely under the thumb and influence of the ruling Chief Minister of the State who is antagonized against the petitioner, fair investigation is not possible and the same should be directed to be made by some independent agency.;