- (1.) THE writ petition was presented before us on 1 - 4 -1998 and upon our direction was to be put up on the next day. On that day directions were issued calling upon the respondents to come up with counter -affidavit. The petitioner was directed to file rejoinder affidavit there ­after and the matter was directed to be listed on 6 -5 -1998. A further direction was given to the effect "Subject to his co -opera ­tion in the investigation, the petitioner may not be arrested in case Crime No. 358 of 1997 under Sections 419 and 420, LP.C. and 7/13, Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, till further orders."
(2.) ON 2 -4 -1998 itself, after the aforesaid order was passed, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G. A, made submissions before us touching the jurisdictional point as also the maintainability of the petition. We, thus, directed the matter to come up on 3 -4 -1998 subject to information to Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The matter could be finally heard, on the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the prayers, on 13 -4 -1998. The petitioner, Nasim Uddin Sid -diqui, claimed to be an erstwhile Member of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh and for certain period he held the post of a Minister in the Cabinet of Ms, Mayawati. He claims to be a sitting Mem ­ber of the Legislative Council at present. He sought for quashing the F.I.R. in the aforementioned case on the ground of mala fide. He also prayed for a protection against arrest in the said case. There was a further prayer that investigation of the case be made over to C.B. C.I.D. for an impartial and independent investigation. There was yet another prayer that the properties of the petitioner at Banda, at ­tached under an arbitrary order purport ­ing to be under Section 83, Cr. PC., be released forthwith.
(3.) THE learned A.G.A. submitted that the incident for which the F.I.R. was lodged took place within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this High Court and the order under Section 83, Cr. PC. was passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the petition was not at all maintainable at Allahabad. It was further stated that there had also been an order under Section 82, Cr. P.C. issuing a proclamation against the petitioner depicting him as an absconder and this order was challenged in an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before the Lucknow Bench, which is pending.;