- (1.) THE present writ pe tition has been filed by the leader of the Congress Legislature Party in U. P. As sembly. Through this writ petition he has made a prayer for an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the re spondents No. 40 and 41 (the Home Secre tary, U. P. , and the State of U. P. , through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow) to register criminal cases against respondents No. 1 to 39 for of fences under Sections 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. THEre is a further prayer that a further direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Cental Bureau of In vestigation (hereinafter referred to as the C. B. I.) to enquire into the matter and submit a report with regard to the inci dents from 19-10-1997 to 31-10-1997 and from 21-2-1998 to 26- 2-1998 involving what was described as 'purchasing the M. L. As1. by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and involvement of respondent Nos. 1 to 39 in the act of accepting illegal gratifica tion.
(2.) THE gist of the allegations is that in the last election, for the Constitution of U. P. Assembly, no particular political party got absolute majority. Hence political negotiations went on between different political parties and groups and finally the Bhartiya Janta Party and Bahujan Samaj Party (hereinafter referred to as the 'b. J. P. 1 and 'b. S. P. 1 respectively) combined to gether to form a Government and a Cabi net headed by Sushri Mayawati of B. S. P. was constituted with Members from both the B. J. P. and B. S. P. THEre was a political understanding between the two parties that after six months Sushri Mayawati would make over the office of the Chief Minister to Sri Kalyan Singh of the B. J. P. It was, however, felt towards the fag-end of the tenure of Sushri Mayawati that there was an apparent squabble going on between the so called partners of the Government. It was alleged that the process of alluring the Members of the Legislative Assembly from other groups began in September, 1997 only with a view to get a show of majority in favour of the B. J. P. It was alleged that the first prey of Sri Kalyan Singh was Sri Naresh Agarwal, who was elected to the assembly as an aspirant from Indian Na tional Congress, Allegations were made that there were circumstantial and docu mentary evidence to sugget that Sri Agar wal was bribed not only to change over side but to procure others also to join hands with the B. J. P. It was alleged that in the third week of October, 1997 when Mayawati withdrew her support and the Govenment of Kalyan Singh was called upon to prove its majority on the floor of the house on 21-10-1997, a deal was struck by Kalyan Singh with Naresh Agarwal in derogation to all norms and decencies of public and political life and 22 Members of the Legislative Assembly, erstwhile belonging to the Indian National Congress formed a break away group and joined hands with Kalyan Singh and voted in his favour on the floor of the house. It was alleged that the defection was achieved upon a consideration of gratifi cation by way of offering berths in the Cabinet to all these 22 defectors. THEre were certain other Members of the Legis lative Assembly who belonged to the B. S. P. and certain more belonging to the Janta Dal, who were also allured by Kalyan Singh with gratification by way of political power and, thus, majority in fa vour of the B. J. P. Government led by Kalyan Singh was 'purchased1. It was alleged further that in his interview, before the media including the Electronic Media, Naresh Agarwal had accepted that he had changed loyalty for sharing power. The petitioner described such an act as reflective of the total degra dation of political morality and taking the action within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). It was alleged that certain other Chief Ministers of other States belonging to the B. J. P. had also come with sizeable amount of money to purchase the M. L. As. before the trial of strength on the floor of the U. P. Assembly on 21-10- 1997 and these Chief Ministers were also arrayed as respondents, against whom also action was sought for. Refer ence was made to Schedule X of the Constitution providing for disqualification on the ground of defection. Certain alle gations were also made regrding other opposite parties alleging their participa tion in the process of bribing or purchas ing of M. L. As. or what was described as 'horse trading'. We are not required at this stage to record any comments on the merits of the case, but it must be stated that if the alle gations are true, they present the hollow-ness of the democracy we brag to practise. If the allegations are true, they reflect a total erosion of values in our political cir cles. If we take up the matter on merits at any future point of time, we would look to the truth of the allegations to determine if at all the allegations, if true, would make out offences under the Act. For the pre liminary objections, however, we start with the presumption, for the sake of argument only, that there had been certain offences committed by respondents No. 1 to 39. In this light we may now look to the prelimi nary objections raised by the learned Ad vocate General Sri R. P. Goel.
(3.) IT was contended by Sri Goel that whenever any offence is committed either under the Indian Penal Code or under any special law, the Cpdie of Criminal Proce dure provides for initiation of a criminal case and for investigation and enquiry, and trial into the same. IT is not for the writ Court to act as a substitute for the authori ties created by law for institution of crimi nal case and for investigation of the same. He read out the provisions of Sections 154 (1), 154 (3), 156 (3) as also Sections 190 and 200, Cr PC to highlight his points. Ample scope was there for any person ag grieved by a criminal act either to lodge an FIR before the concerned Police Station or to make a complaint directly in court. Criminal Courts are empowered to take cognizance of offences either on complaint or on police report or even on personal knowledge. The Cr PC further provides in Section 154 (3) that if the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station refused to record an FIR, the complainant could send a copy of his complaint to the Superintendent of Police. There is yet another door open for a complainant. He could approach the Magistrate empowered under Section 190, Cr PC with a complaint for referring it to a Police Station for institution of a case and investigation. The learned counsel con tended that there being so many alterna tives open to a petitioner for initiation of a criminal case, it would be unnecessary7 for the writ Court to look into the matter as a Court of first instance. The second preliminary objection that was raised by the learned Advocate General was that a prayer for issuance of writ or order in the nature of mandamus has been made through this petition but it was the settled law that mandamus could be issued when there is some stautory right which has been vilated or some statutory duty which has not been complied with. In the instant case there is no allegation that any authority had denied to act according to any statutory direction and, as such, a writ of mandamus could not have been issued.;