AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Ajai Lamba, J.—Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there is a dispute in regard to family property between the petitioner and his maternal grand mother. Maternal grand mother is living with the petitioner in the same house.
Learned counsel asserts that respondent no. 7, Mr. Sunil Gupta got a false case registered against the petitioner, the same being Case Crime No. 431 of 2010, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, under Sections 323, 384, 504, 506 IPC. Charges have not yet been framed by the trial court in the said case, although investigation has been concluded.
Learned counsel contends that because Mr. Sunil Gupta, respondent no. 7, an I.P.S. Officer, abused the authority vested in him by law, the petitioner made a complaint to respondent nos. 1 and 2, which has been referred to the Department of Home.
Learned counsel contends that at this stage proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner u/s 110(g), Cr.P.C., which is in total abuse of process of court. Show cause notice has been issued by the magistrate concerned on the basis of a report furnished by Officer-in-charge, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of the nature.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, learned A.G.A., appearing for the State, does not dispute the fact that only Case Crime No. 431 of 2010, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, is pending against the petitioner.
Provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. inhere that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security, hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has already responded to the show cause notice in writing. Learned counsel further contends that initiation of proceedings u/s 110 Cr.P.C. in context of one case, viz Case Crime No. 431 of 2010 would not be sufficient so as to invoke provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel contends that he does not press the petition against respondents 1 and 2.
Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to be removed from array of respondents.
Issue notice returnable on 31.01.2012.
In the meantime, D.I.G./S.S.P., Lucknow, is directed to file his affidavit as to in how many cases in Lucknow proceedings have been recommended u/s 110 Cr.P.C. in which a single case under Sections 323, 384, 452, 504, 506 IPC has been lodged.
The affidavit be filed on or before 31.01.2012.
In the meantime, impugned proceedings as against the petitioner shall remain stayed. Shri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. shall ensure compliance of this order.