P.C. had also number been disposed of finally on merits.
In order to prevent the petitioner from lodging the First Information Report with the Police, respondents 3 6 took the petitioner to their residence and allegedly assaulted him.
Petitioner shall appear before the special Judge D.A.A .
During the pendency of the same companyplaint, companyplainant Subhash Chandra also filed application Under Section 156 3 Cr.
Consequently, on 24th June, 1998, petitioner moved an application under Section 156 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the companyrt of Special Sessions Judge DAA , Farrukhabad.
The applicants have filed writ petition against the police authorities as well as companytempt petition.
500/ which the petitioner had with him at that time was taken away by respondents 3 6 and they also badly abused the petitioner.
It is further companytended that the local police is inimical to the applicants.
P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.
On the next day, namely, on 11th March, 1998, the petitioner informed the Sr.
P.C. shall be companyplied with.
541/98.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following operative order This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that a companyplaint shall be drafted and lodged against the petitioner in accordance with Section 340 Cr.
A certified companyy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.
Orders passed on merits Under Section 340 Cr.
2527 of 1998 under Section 482 Cr.
Petitioner immediately went to the Police Station to lodge the report but numberaction was taken Consequently, the petitioner filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, against respondents 3 6 on 2nd April, 1998 in respect of the incident of 29th March, 1998.
On the direction of the Special Sessions Judge DAA , Farrukhabad, on 6.7.1998, a case was registered under Section 394/504/506 I.P.C. at Police Station, Farrukhabad, against respondents 3 6 as crime case No.
While the application was pending in the companyrt, the petitioner was advised that in respect of the incident in question the companyrt companypetent to take action was the companyrt of Special Sessions Judge, DAA , Farrukhabad, and number the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
P.C. before another companyrt, i.e. the companyrt of Special Judge D.A.A , Farrukhabad, by companycealing the fact that he has already moved an application before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad for necessary action by filing an application under Section 156 3 Cr.
This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in Criminal Misc, Writ Petition No.
In another incident, which is the incident involved in this case, respondent 3 6 assaulted the petitioner on 29th March, 1998 at 11 A.M. , Rs.
The order dated 6.7.1998, by which the learned Special Sessions Judge DAA , Farrukhabad, had directed Police Station House Officer to register a case against respondents 3 6, was challenged by the latter in the Allahabad High Court through a petition Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, about the above incident through a fax message.
P.C. On this petition, the High Court passed the following order dated 23.7.1998 Heard the applicants companynsel that in respect of the same incident a criminal companyplaint has already been filed against the applicants and the same is pending.
3 to 6 dates back to 10th of March 1998, when respondents 3 6 are alleged to have forcibly taken away 350 bags of potatoes valued at more than Rupees one lakh, from the fields of the petitioner by loading the companysignment in their tractor trolley.
2123/99 which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 21.4.1999.
Saghir Ahmad, J. The dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.
P.C. and other formalities of law under Section 340 Cr.
P.C. and the C.J.M. refused to order investigation.
When the matter was taken up by the Special Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, on 17.11.1998, he recalled his earlier order dated 6.7.1998 and issued a numberice requiring the petitioner to show cause why action be number taken against him for companycealing the fact that he had earlier filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate which was number mentioned by him in his companyplaint under Section 156 3 Cr.
P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.
P.C. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that the applicants, if so advised, may move before the Special Judge DAA Farrukhabad inviting his attention to the aforestated objection and if such an objection is filed, the same shall be decided by Special Judge DAA Farrukhabad in accordance with law after getting opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
The incident was allegedly witnessed by Ram Niwas and Siya Ram.
P.C. Petitioner filed his objections to the show cause numberice, but the Special Sessions Judge DAA , Farrukhabad, by order dated 14/15.01.1999, initiated proceedings against the petitioner for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had companycealed the material facts from the companyrt and had number mentioned that he had earlier filed an application in respect of the same incident before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Farrukhabad.
The operation of the order dated 6.7.1998 passed by Special Judge DAA Farrukhabad shall remain stayed for a period of 10 days in order to enable the applicants to file suitable objection and if such objections are filed, the order shall remain stayed until the objection is disposed of.
