- (1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioners praying that a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 17.02.2014, lodged by opposite party no.3, vide Case Crime No.105 of 2014, under Section 379, 411, 332, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 26 Indian Forest Act, at Police Station Nawabganj, district Bahraich be issued and a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties no.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case be also issued. Further, they have also prayed that any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the opposite parties be issued.
(2.) DURING the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opposite party no.3 has instituted the First Information Report on 17.02.2014, vide Case Crime No.105 of 2014, was registered under Sections 379, 411, 332, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, at police Station Nawabganj, district Bahraich, against the petitioners. Learned counsel argued that the allegations are that on the intervening night of 16/17.02.2014 petitioners cut down two trees of Sagaun and brought these trees into pieces to their house and thus, committed theft. The forest department personnel recovered six pieces of stolen Sagaun trees from the compound of petitioners' house and carried these pieces to the police post. That enraged by act of the Forest Personnels, the petitioners attacked them inside the police post at 11:00 a.m. and threatened them. Learned counsel pointed out that the facts are not correct. The true facts are that one Van Mali Sheshraj Shukla's son was implicated in a rape case and he was in dire need of Rs.5200/ - and has borrowed the money so needed from petitioner no.1, but later on refused to return when asked to pay back. Petitioner no.1 made a complaint to the Forest Officer regarding the conduct of Van Mali and that was the reason why Sheshraj Shukla, Van Mali nurtured grievances against the petitioners and falsely implicated them in above mentioned complaint. The complaint to the Forest Officer against Van Mali, Sheshraj, is annexed herewith as Annexure No.2 dated 15.02.2014, whereas the incident has been reported on 17.02.2014.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. opposed the petition and argued that this is the crime against public servant while he was performing the official duty and recovery has been effected from the compound of petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.;