- (1.) 1.The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this Court with the following prayers: (i) the Secs. 195 & 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which is now in force wherein the offensive provisions of Sees. 47 & 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1923 have been incorporated and retained in substance by the Parliament of India may kindly be declared ultra vires , and (ii) the record of the cases referred in the writ petition may kindly be- ordered to be called and 'by an appropriate writ, order or. direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cases referred under the headings "A" to "0" may kindly be ordered to be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the people of India.
(2.) The petitioner appears to be in litigation with two officials of UCO Bank, Jodhpur namely Mr. Rameshwar Lal and Mr. Chiranji Lal Sharma and in relation to some dispute with the firm M/s. Gurukripa General and Provision Store and, in which certain disputes in which the petitioner was also there and in connection with various litigations in relation to some dispute between the Bank and the said firm and the petitioner has either filed civil or criminal complaints or is facing them and the said litigation between these parties appears to have led the petitioner to file the present writ petition despite having failed in such similar approaches to this Court on previous occasions and now with an additional challenge to certain provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Secs. 195 & 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3.) In fact from the chequered history of the case and the long list of the documents annexed with the writ petition, which is claimed to be a "unique blend of public interest litigation and private interest litigation" as stated in Para 2 of the writ petition itself, it shows that the petitioner is out and out to somehow teach the lesson to the aforesaid bank officials and for washing the dirty linen between them, has sought to invoke the Division Bench jurisdiction of this Court by raising a question of constitutional validity of aforesaid two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apparently as a cover to maintain the writ petition before the Division Bench.;