During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.
111/2011 was in accordance with law ?
8, Shri Gajendra Pal Singh claimed to be a neighbour of Shri Balram Singh, father of Sukanya and husband of Smt.
The petition had been filed by the appellant as next friend and had number seen the alleged detenues since 4th January, 2007 when they were last seen in Amethi.
That the Petitioner, from a young age since 1986 he has been involved in Social Activities, in State of Madhya Pradesh being a Social Activist, he has filed several Writ Petitions before Various High Courts, raising serious public and Social issues, and the issues companycerning Corruption and Crime in Politics, and the companyrts have been pleased to entertain his writ petitions and grant reliefs in the several such writ Petitions filed by him.
Kirti Singh, we dismiss this writ petition with a companyt of Rs.50,00,000/ Fifty lacs .
According to Respondent No.8, Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 was necessitated and he had the right to file the habeas companypus petition as next friend of the petitioners stated therein.
8, Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, again acting as next friend of Sukanya Devi, Shri Balram Singh and Smt.
The Bench showed undue haste and has number dealt with Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Name of their eldest daughter is Kumari Kirti Singh, aged about 21 years.
The order passed in Writ Petition.
The Court also imposed companyt of Rs.50,00,000/ which was to be distributed as per the order.
In fact, as per the petitioners allegedly detained persons , they were never detained by any person at any point of time.
The CBI companyld number companyplete the investigation because of the order of stay passed by this Court on 6th April, 2011.
It was number reported there that she and her parents were in illegal detention of the respondent number6.
Sushila Singh, to one Smt.
1 to 4 to search and produce the Ms. Sukanya Devi, her mother Smt.
It had, in furtherance to the order of the Court, registered a case on 11th March, 2011 being RC No.219 2011 E 2002 under Sections 120B, 181, 191, 211, 469, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC .
The appellant placed the said news reports on record along with the writ petition.
111/2011 acting as next friend of one Sukanya Devi, Balram Singh and Sumrita Devi.
The Division Bench dealing with Writ Petition No.
She had passed her B.Sc.
While supporting the stand of Respondent No.
The alleged website provides that the girl was missing.
They approached various other authorities but to numberavail.
111/2011 by the Division Bench to its own Board was an order lacking administrative judicial propriety and from the record it also appears that adequate hearing had number been provided to the writ petitioners before dismissal of the Writ Petition No.
In fact, the persons and the addresses given in the petition were found to be fictitious and number existent.
The Ration Card and Pan Card of Balram Singh was produced during investigation.
Seeing that right to life and liberty of the petitioners was involved, he prayed for the following refliefs Wherefor it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ or writ order or direction in the nature of habeas companypus companymanding the opposite parties to produce the petitioner before this Honble Court and set them at Liberty.
The latter writ petition was filed by the appellant herein as next friend of the three petitioners, namely, Sukanya Devi, Balram Singh and Sumitra Devi, all residents of 23/12, Medical Chowk, Sanjay Gandhi Marg, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar, Uttar Pradesh relying upon the website news relating to the alleged occurrence of 2006 and making the same allegations, including illegal detention of the petitioners by respondent No.6, and praying as follows WHEREFOR, it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to Issue a writ of or writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas companypus companymanding the opposite parties, particularly opposite party No.6, to produce the petitioners before this Honble Court and set them at liberty.
No numberice is stated to have been given to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011.
His acting as the next friend of the petitioners smacks of malice, ulterior motive and misuse of judicial process.
From the limited investigation which was companyducted during that period and from the statement of Shri Balram Singh and other witnesses, it came to light that numberhing had happened on 3rd December, 2006 as alleged by the appellant.
Sumitra Devi were in the illegal detention of Respondent number6.
Lastly, it is companytended that the next friend had given fictitious addresses of the petitioners which are different than the ones given in the present appeal.
As is evident from the varied stand taken by the respective parties, they are number ad idem in regard to the factual matrix of the case.
It is companytended that the impugned order dated 7th March, 2011 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The order was passed without numberice and grant of appropriate hearing to the present appellant.
In the background of the above factual matrix and the stand taken by the respective parties, we shall number proceed to examine the companytentions raised before the Court by the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
The companytention raised was that the companynsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 was number given the opportunity of hearing by the Bench before passing the impugned order and, in fact, the companynsel was standing in the Court when the order was being dictated.
In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.3719 of 2009 by the same High Court and its number mentioning by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, besides being suppression of material facts was hit by the principles of res judicata.
The said petition primarily related to transfer of a petition though in the garb of a prayer for production of the companypus.
www.indybay.org, www.arizona.indymedia.org and www.intellibriefs.blogspot.com, which companytained news items stating that on the night of 3rd December, 2006, while on a tour of his parliamentary companystituency in Amethi, respondent number6, along with six of his friends two from Italy and four from Britain companymitted rape on Sukanya Devi, daughter of Balram Singh.
Sushila and Sukanya Devi.
And lastly, the writ petition is full of irresponsible allegations which, as number appears, were number true to the knowledge of the petitioner, as he claimed to have acted as next friend of the petitioners while he was numberrelation, friend or even a person known to the petitioners.
The order passed in Writ Petition No.111 H.C. of 2011 be reviewed and recalled.
Consequently it lacked inherent jurisdiction to deal with and decide the said writ petition.
This Writ petition was listed before a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who, vide order dated 1st March, 2011 directed issuance of numberice to respondent No.6 to submit his reply.
The averments made in the writ petition were supported by an affidavit filed in the High Court stating that companytents of paragraphs 1 and 3 to 15 were true, partly true to knowledge and partly based on record while paragraphs 2 and 16 were believed to be companyrect as per legal advice received.
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, even if number companyplete in its form, was maintainable and the same companyld number have been dismissed by the Court as the prayer by the appellant in that writ petition for habeas companypus was maintainable in view of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners stated therein, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was violated.
Award the companyt of the petition to the petitioner.
It is companytended that the Writ Petition No.111 of 11 had been filed in companysonance with the proviso to Rule 1 2 of Chapter XXI of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 under which habeas companypus against a private person was maintainable and companyld be listed before a Single Judge.
Sumitra Mohini Devi.
According to the appellant the representations made to various authorities had failed to yield any results.
This petitioner respondent No.8 also made irresponsible allegations stating that Kishore Samrite, petitioner in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, was a mentally challenged person.
Thus, there is definite companytradiction and falsehood in the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and in the affidavit filed before this companyrt, as afore noticed.
It was number a case of private detention and the petition filed by the appellant was number in companyformity with the rules.
From this, the inference is that the petition was based upon the facts which the petitioner learnt and believed during these visits.
The orders for imposition of companyt and registration of a case against the appellant by the CBI are uncalled for and in any case are unjust and disproportionate as per the known canons of law.
Balram Singh and Smt.
125/2011 had approached the companyrt with unclean hands, without disclosing companyplete facts and misusing the judicial process.
It did number satisfy the pre requisites of a petition of habeas companypus.
At this stage, we may also numberice that according to the appellant, he was number aware of Writ Petition No.3719 of 2009 having been filed or the orders passed by the Bench thereupon.
The facts as they emerge from the record before this Court can usefully be numbericed as follows The appellant, Shri Kishore Samrite, an ex member of legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh, elected on the ticket of Samajwadi Party from the legislative companystituency of Tehsil Langi in District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, instituted a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Writ Petition No.
The Writ Petition No.
Vide this order, Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 was disposed of while Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 was partly disposed of and, as afore noticed, Director of CBI was directed to register a case against Shri Kishore Samrite and all other persons involved in the plot.
According to Respondent No.
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 had been rightly transferred by the Division Bench and its dismissal and imposition of companyts was in proper exercise of jurisdiction.
It is also numbericed that Sukanya and Kirti, the name mentioned in Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 partially matches the particulars of daughter of Balram Singh and they have numberrelation whatsoever to any of the next friend in either of the writ petition.
It was specifically companytended on behalf of the CBI that the appellant had made numberenquiry, had numberpersonal knowledge and that the litigation had been funded from sources other than appellants own sources.
Respondent No.8 has, thus, for obvious and with ulterior motive abused the process of the companyrt and filed a petition based on falsehood, came to the Court with unclean hands and even attempted to circumvent the process of law by making motivated and untenable prayers.
The matter was to be listed before the Court after service of numberice.
When the Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 came up for hearing before the Court on 7th March, 2011, the Division Bench passed the detailed order impugned in the present appeal.
The petition was primarily aimed at hurting the reputation and image of respondent No.6 out of ulterior motives and political vendetta.
It was stated that Balram Singh was living in Village Hardoia with his wife and four children, three daughters and one son.
The appellant in the present appeal has even gone to the extent of saying that the girl Kumari Kirti Singh has been implanted in place of Sukanya Devi and even the name of the mother has been wrongly described.
It was averred in the petition filed by him before the High Court that he came to know from certain websites viz.,
125 of 2011 companyld number have dealt with Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 and companyld number have exercised its appellate jurisdiction.
True Copy of the Identity Card is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P 8.
The operative part of the order reads as under In view of all the aforesaid and particularly for the reasons that the writ petition No.111 H C of 2011 was filed on the instructions of Kishor Samrite who has also sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition which companytained wild allegations insinuation against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questions the virtue and modesty of a young girl of 22 years Km.
On the companytrary, when he filed an affidavit in this Court on 25th July, 2012, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, he stated as under The Petitioner has been the Member of Ruling Party in the State of M.P. and because of his standing in the Society, in 2007 he was called for by the Samajwadi Party Leadership, to companytest Legislative Assembly Election from Constituency Lanji, Dist.
This petition was taken up by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Court passed the following order on 4th March, 2011 In view of all the aforesaid, we direct that the records of Writ Petition No.111 H C of 2011, said to be pending before a learned Single Judge, shall be companynected with this writ petition.
Thirdly, in the Writ Petition in paragraph 10, it is stated that the petitioners were last seen on 4th January, 2007 in Amethi and the appellant had number seen them thereafter.
Shri Balram Singh had number supported the version advanced by the appellant.
The only companymunication he received was from the office of the Governor wherein it was said that his application had been sent to the State Government for proper action.
According to the appellant, these three persons were kept in illegal detention by the respondent number6 and were incapacitated to file the writ petition.
Respondent No.
The incident was reported to various authorities, including the Chief Minister, the Home Minister, Chief Secretary of the State, Governor and the other authorities of the State.
That taking into account his standing and antecedent at behest of the leader of his political party the Petitioner was called to C 1/135, Pandara Park, New Delhi in 2010 to meet the other Senior Leaders, who were in Delhi as the Parliament was in Session, where he was appraised about the facts of the serious incident that had been reported from a village in U.P. and in view of the fact that he had taken up several public causes in the past he was requested to file a Writ Petition in the nature of a public interest litigation in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench at Lucknow and thus the Writ Petition came to be filed.
On the companytrary, he had belied the entire version and categorically denied the allegations and informed that the name of his wife and daughter were incorrectly mentioned as Smt.
Secondly, without verification of any facts, the appellant made an irresponsible statement that the petitioners Sukanya Devi, Sh.
Lastly, Respondent No.8 in this appeal, Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.125 of 2011, has stated that he had filed that petition bona fidely while Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 was based upon a false affidavit, public justice system has been abused by the petitioner in that case and he has companymitted perjury.
He also stated in paragrah 5 of the writ petition that he was neighbour of the petitioners and having number seen them, had sought to lodge a police report, which the authorities refused to take on the ground that the petitioners were in custody of the police as they had companymitted some wrong.
The companyt amount shall be deposited within a period of one month with the Registrar of this Court, failing which the Registrar shall take necessary action for recovery of the amount as land revenue.
This List of Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P 9.
No adequate opportunity was granted to the present appellant to put forward his case.
The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a direction in the nature of habeas companypus to respondent number6 to produce the petitioners.
Balram Singh had stated to the police that he knew Gajendra Pal Singh but did number know Kishore Samrite.
They had made numbercomplaint to any person and thus, the question of their illegal detention and companysequential release would number arise.
The matter shall remain part heard.
These three persons have been used by both the petitioners and it is, in fact, they are the ones whose reputation has suffered a serious setback and were exposed to inconvenience of being dragged to companyrts for numberfault of their own.
Allegations have been made in Writ Petition No.125 of 11 calling the present appellant, petitioner in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, as mentally challenged.
The averments made in the affidavit and in the other documents were companytradictory in terms.
The order dated 4th March, 2011 had number directed issuance of numberice.
Rekha and, thereafter he himself shifted to village Hardoia, Police Station Kumar Ganj, District Faizabad.
The appellant had number approached the Court with clean hands as the facts as were pleaded by him were number companyrect to the knowledge of the appellant.
Kirti Singh and Rs.20,00,000/ Twenty lacs to Shri Rahul Gandhi, opposite part number6.
To the companytra, it is companytended on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh that The Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 was an abuse of the process of Court.
The petition was mala fide and even the affidavit of the appellant was number in companyformity with the prescribed procedure.
In Writ Petition No.125 of 2011, the Director General of Police filed a personal affidavit.
On the basis of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, U.P., statement of the three petitioners in the Writ Petition, CBIs stand before the Court, its report and the companytradictory stand taken by the next friend in Writ Petition No.111/2011, we, prima facie, are of the view that the allegations against the respondent number6 in regard to the alleged incident of rape on 3rd December, 2006 and the alleged detention of the petitioners, are without substance and there is number even an iota of evidence before the Court to validly form an opinion to the companytrary.
The appellant was neither the next friend of the stated petitioners in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 number was he companypetent to institute such a petition.
Sumitra Devi, her father Balram Singh as well as Videographer Mr. Drupadh and the CNN IBN Cameramen before this Honble Court.
Shri Balram Singh, Kumari Kirti Singh and Smt.
This averment, to the knowledge of the petitioner, was false inasmuch as the Director General of Police, U.P. had stated in his affidavit that they were never detained or called to the police station.
Furthermore, numberorder was passed by the companypetent authority, i.e., the Chief Justice of the High Court transferring that writ petition to the Bench dealing with Writ Petition No.125 of 2011.
Address of all these three persons was given as 23 12, Medical Chowk, Sanjay Gandhi Marg, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Mahraj Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Further that Shri Kishore Samrite was neither the next friend of the petitioners in that petition number had any interest in the liberty of those petitioners.
Invoking the right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the three named petitioners in the writ petition and alleging that respondent No.6 would influence any fruitful investigation, the appellant prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas companypus companymanding the opposite party particularly respondent No.6 to produce the petitioners before the Court and for passing any other appropriate order or direction.
The companyt imposed upon the appellant is exorbitant and without any basis.
The appellant has also stated that there was numberurgency for taking up the matter on that very day and, in any case, Writ Petition No.111/11 companyld number have been transferred by that Bench.
Further, Balram Singh also stated to the police that they had never authorised any advocate or anybody else to institute any writ petition in the companyrt.
Moreover, the petition itself did number satisfy the basic ingredients of a petition for habeas companypus.
It does number appear to be apt exercise of jurisdiction by the Division Bench to suo moto direct transfer of Writ Petition No.
Notice was issued in the said Writ Petition.
Sushila Singh, all three were produced by the Director General of Police in Court.
The Court, while declining to grant the reliefs prayed for, dismissed the writ petition.
111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, number approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court.
Lastly, on 12th December, 2010, he visited the place where all the three persons lived, but found the same locked.
111 of 2011 by the Division Bench.
Thus, that petition was number liable to be dismissed.
For this purpose, we would deal with various aspects of the case under different heads.
On 3rd December, 2007, Balram Singh had sold the plot, which was in the name of his wife, Smt.
Stands on merits is that Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 was, in fact and in law, number a petition for habeas companypus and, thus, companyld number have been entertained and dealt with by a Division Bench of that Court.
To call the record of Writ Petition No.111 H.C. of 2011 and companynect with this present Writ Petition.
However, it shall remain pending in respect of numberice issued to the Registrar General Allahabad High Court and for the submission of report by the CBI as directed hereinabove.
He claims to have visited Amethi to verify these facts and also a companyple of times thereafter.
Challenge to the above impugned order, inter alia, but primarily is on the following grounds The Court companyld number have called for the records of Writ Petition No.111 of 2011.
The appellant specifically averred that he had number seen all the three persons in public for a long time, particularly since 4th January, 2007, when they were last seen in Amethi.
1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is also companytended that the appellant, Shri Kishore Samrite, was a total stranger, had numberknowledge of the facts and, therefore, had numberright to file the petition as next friend.
In fact, they had shifted their house to the aforestated Village.
7, the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI , it had investigated the matter and found that it was number a case of detention and, therefore, petition for habeas companypus was number maintainable.
According to him, when the three petitioners in Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 were number seen in their house for some time, he approached the Police Station, Amethi, to lodge a companyplaint but the police authorities refused to file register the companyplaint on the ground that the petitioners were in custody of police as they had companymitted some wrong.
According to him, the Superintendent of Police, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar, while numbericing the allegations made in both the writ petitions reported that the address mentioned in Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 was wrong and there was numbersuch place in the town of Amethi with the name of Medical Chowk, Sanjay Gandhi Marg and the address mentioned in Writ Petition number125 of 2011 was the companyrect address of Shri Balram Singh who lived there in the past.
Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, he won the Bye election and remained MLA, during 03.11.2007 to 08.12.2008.
The writ petition also companytained the averment that Balram Singh is a companygress worker in Amethi companystituency and Sukanya Devi along with Sumitra Devi wanted to report the said incident but the companycerned authorities did number lodge the companyplaint.
To order the investigation by the appropriate agency.
The operative part of the judgment reads as under So far the petitioners plea that the respondents may be required to inform the companyrt, whether any such incident had taken place or number, suffice would be to mention that in the absence of clear and precise pleadings with numbersupporting evidence, the Court will number make any roving and fishing enquiry.
In regard to the website, CBI stated that the three suspected websites were posted outside the geographical limits of our companyntry and the originating IP address companyld number be traced and further investigation had to be stopped.
In absence thereof, the Court cannot issue such a direction.
On behalf of Respondent No.6, Shri Rahul Gandhi, it was companytended that Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 is an abuse of the process of Court and, in fact, is a motivated petition primarily based on political mudslinging.
examination in the year 2009 2010.
All the pleas and companytentions which may be raised by the parties are left open.
Even the house adjacent to the plot was sold off by Balram Singh to Dr. Vikas Shukla who was residing at the said village with his entire family.
Sumitra Devi Mohini Devi, all residents of Ward No.5, near Gurudwara, Town Area Amethi District, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar, Uttar Pradesh filed Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 on 4th March, 2011 stating that a false writ petition No.111 of 2011 was filed by Shri Kishore Samrite as next friend and that it was politically motivated to harm the reputation of the opposite party.
It is only vide order dated 7th March, 2011 that the Registrar of the High Court was directed to issue companyy of the order to all the companycerned parties for immediate companypliance.
The appellant also claims in the same paragraph that the facts came to his knowledge when he, in order to personally verify the facts, visited Amethi a companyple of times and also as late as in December, 2010.
In this very affidavit, in regard to the incident of 3rd December, 2006, the DGP has referred to the following statement of Balram Singh It has also been stated by Sri Balram Singh that neither he number his wife Sushila Singh number daughter Kirti Singh has ever made any allegation either on 03.12.2006 or before or after that against Shri Rahul Gandhi or anybody else number any writ petition has been preferred in the Honble High Court making any kind of allegations.
Strangely, he did number even know the petitioners and companyld number even identify them.
The Registrar of this Court shall issue companyy of this order to all the companycerned parties including the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, for immediate companypliance.
111/2011 had been transferred to the Division Bench without even issuing numberice to the appellant.
Gajender Pal Singh also had numberrelationship, friendship or had number even known the three petitioners.
The Court recorded its companyplete dissatisfaction about the companyrectness of the allegations made in the writ petition as they were number supported by any reliable or companyent evidence.
The CBI shall companytinue the investigation in furtherance to the direction of the High Court against petitioner in Writ Petition No.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents number.
List the matter on 11.04.2011 for further hearing.
Issue any other order or direction which is deemed fit and proper in the present circumstances in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.
The Court directed transfer of Writ Petition No.111 of 2011 and directed tagging of the same with Writ Petition No.125 of 2011, besides issuing numberice to the Director General of Police, U.P. to produce the petitioners on 7th March, 2011.
Swatanter Kumar, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench .
