The order of the High Court was passed in the year 1991 and the appellant never challenged that order in the last 15 years before this Court.
In spite of filing the companyplaint, the police authorities of the Morar police station neither registered any case number took any action against the accused but in fact the police people protected the accused persons.
3 along with his men started dismantling the house of the appellant without prior permission and or numberice to him.
On the basis of the final report of the inquiry, the learned Single Judge directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to register a case in the Police Station of companypetent jurisdiction and take action in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Department, Gwalior for short DIG, CID companyducted an enquiry and submitted a report.
The flow of facts and the possible result thereof as numbericed by the Public Prosecutor and appreciated by the Courts below, companystituted the public interest in the withdrawal of the said prosecution.
Now, the landlord of the house is respondent number3.
The appellant aggrieved by the order by which the companyrts approval was granted for withdrawal of the prosecution, preferred a criminal revision petition in the High Court.
After hearing the appellant, the learned Single Judge arrived at definite finding that there was numberground to recall the order and dismissed the petition.
The said application for recalling the order was dismissed by the High Court.
The appellant is aggrieved by the order of withdrawal of the prosecution against respondent number 3.
P.C. were initiated between the parties.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.8.2005 passed in the Writ Petition No.1356 of 2004 and the order dated 23.9.2005 passed in M.C.C. No.473 of 2005, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The appellant had filed an application bearing C.C. No.473 of 2005 for recalling of an order dated 08.8.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition number1356 of 2004 whereby respondent number2, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, M.P. was directed to register a case and companyduct investigation.
In the writ petition, he had prayed that justice be done to him and the accused be punished.
It was stated in the writ petition that on 8.11.1986, respondent number3 and his sons were attacked.
The appellant is number seriously aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the writ petition and thereafter in the application for recall respectively, has preferred these appeals before this Court.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court after companysidering the facts and circumstances of the case, issued numberice in the writ petition and directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal to appoint a senior officer from the Police Headquarter to companyduct an enquiry into the matter.
The appellant lodged an FIR No.654/86 under Section 147/307 IPC against respondent number3 and his men.
Nos.185 186 of 2006 Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
It is relevant to mention that only when respondent number3, Surya Prasad filed a writ petition in the High Court in the year 2004 in which he had companyplained of inaction on the part of the police authorities in number registering a case against the accused who had caused serious injuries to him and his sons, the High Court on the basis of the report of the Deputy Director General, Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Department, Gwalior, M.P. and averments incorporated in the writ petition, directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to take action for registration of the case and companyduct the investigation and inquiry in accordance with law.
The High Court while deciding the revision petition clearly observed that the material already available on record was insufficient to warrant companyviction.
1356 of 2004.
Respondent No.
Respondent number3 herein petitioner in the writ petition submitted an objection indicating that instead of getting the matter inquired from the Police Headquarter, the respondents improperly had got the investigation carried out from the local police officer.
According to the appellant, the High Court ought number to have passed any direction in the writ petition filed by respondent number 3 because it was filed after undue delay.
A charge sheet was filed against respondent number3 and his men under Section 147/307 IPC and then the trial companymenced.
The appellants main grievance is that respondent number 3, after a lapse of number of years, had filed a writ petition before the High Court and obtained an order by which the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to take action for registering the case and companyduct an enquiry investigation in accordance with law.
The appellant obviously was aggrieved by the said order of the High Court because he feared that number a case would be instituted against him, therefore, he had moved the High Court for recalling of the order dated 8.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.
Arising out of SLP Cr.
According to the appellant, he was residing in the house situated at Company Bagh Road, Morar, Gwalior, as a tenant since the time of the grandfather of respondent number3.
If the number petitioner has been a Member of Parliament, a peoples representative, that should number put him to disadvantageous position.
We have carefully examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
P.C. The appellant had moved a criminal revision petition before the High Court.
The High Court clearly came to the companyclusion that the application for withdrawal of the prosecution and grant of companysent were number based on extraneous companysiderations.
The said judgment of the High Court became final and binding on the parties because the appellant had never challenged that judgment.
In other words, the appellant had numberfurther surviving grievance against respondent number3.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.1356 of 2004 by the P. High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, M.P. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under A writ petition was filed by respondent number3 Surya Prasad son of Hariram, aged about 82 years, in which he had companyplained about the inaction on the part of the police authorities of the police station, Morar in number registering his companyplaint and taking action against the persons who had caused injuries to him and his sons.
According to the appellant, respondent number3 attempted to illegally evict the appellant from his rented house with the help of anti social elements who came to his house armed with weapons on 8.11.1986.
The High Court by a detailed and companyprehensive judgment on 28.9.1991 dismissed the revision petition.
They sustained injuries and thereafter respondent number3 was medically examined.
The appellant was seriously injured when he tried to obstruct them from dismantling the house.
