- (1.) THIS writ petition is an example of gross abuse of process of law not only on the part of the litigant but with due support from learned counsel also.
(2.) AN F.I.R. in case crime No. 127 of 2015 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was lodged at P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal by one Jagdish s/o Mahaveer Prasad in which petitioner Sushil Kumar Rastogi was named as accused. With a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari and quashing of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner came to this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8252 of 2015, wherein the cause title showing his name was Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 others. The writ petition was filed through Sri Amit Kumar Verma Advocate. A Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. did not find any cause for quashing the FIR, having disclosed a cognizable offence, and declining to interfere, dismissed the writ petition, making some observations, vide judgment dated 9.4.2015, which reads as under: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent No. 3 is his landlord. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner has forged the thumb impressions of the lady landlord, who died about six years hence. The receipts, which were prepared, were allegedly after three years of the death of the landlady which are being utilised by the petitioner to defend himself in a litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this very matter is engaging attention of the court in proceedings under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, where the respondent No. 3 has already filed his objection. He, therefore, contends that if the same thumb impression is to be adjudicated before the Rent Control Officer, the same cannot be made the basis of an F.I.R. We are unable to agree to this submission inasmuch as the utilisation of a forged document in a proceeding pending under the Rent Control Act and the very preparation of the document itself alleging the commission of an offence of forgery are two different things and can raise different liabilities. Therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. No case for interference or for quashing of the F.I.R. The writ petition is dismissed with the said observation."
(3.) THEREAFTER this writ petition has been filed in which the petitioner has mentioned his name in cause title as "Sushil Kumar Rastogi @ Sushil Kumar", seeking the same prayer of issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing FIR dated 24.3.2015, registered as Case Crime No. 127 of 2015 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal. The second prayer is for issuing a mandamus, commanding the respondent not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid FIR. Prayers in both the writ petitions read as under: - ;