Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Masood Raza vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home & ... on 26 February, 2020
Bench: Anil Kumar, Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10775 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohammad Masood Raza Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Masood Raza(Inperson Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kalra,Devika Singh,Harish Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Suyash Bajpai Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Mohd. Masood Raza in person, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties no.1,2,3 and 5 as well as Sri R. C. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties opposite party no.4.
Initially petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 16577(MB) of 2018 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.05.2018 registered as Case Crime No.119 of 2018 under Sections 323,504,506 and 452 I.P.C. in Police Station Utraula District Balrampur.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not take any coercive action against the petitioners and not arrest/harass in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 16.05.2018.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to take necessary steps in accordance to law on complaint of petitioner no.1 against the malafide action to the respondent no.3.
(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) Allow the writ petition with costs."
By order dated 30.05.2018, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of as not pressed, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.119 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State states that the offence(s) allegedly committed entail a sentence up to seven years. In such circumstances, the investigating officer shall ensure compliance of provisions of Section 41 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State. In Arnesh Kumar's case (supra) the following(relevant portion) has been held:-
"9. Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.P.C aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows:
"41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-
(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice."
The aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid." (emphasized by us)
4. Considering the stand taken by learned counsel for the State in context of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra), relevant portion from which has been extracted above, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states that let this petition be disposed of as not pressed.
5. Petition is disposed of as not pressed."
Petitioner has submitted that Shakir Ali, who is client of the petitioner was assaulted and grievously hurt by the relative of one Abdul Salam. In this regard Shakir Ali tried to lodge the F.I.R. against the complainant as he sustained head injury in the said assault by the nephew of Abdul Salam but due to influence of Abdul Salam, the respondent no.4 / Santosh Kumar Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Utraula , District Balrampur instead of lodging of F.I.R. , lodged an NCR No.0047 of 2018.
The petitioner further submits that when the petitioner intervened into the matter, he,Hasmat Raza and Shakir Ali were brought to Veranda and threats of encounter were extended to them. Petitioner was frightened and tried to escape from the illegal detention of police and ran away from police Station but he was chased and again caught after few yards and he and Shakir Ali was detained in a proceedings under Section 107,116 Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner and Shakir Ali were released under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. on 16.05.2018.
Thereafter petitioner made a complaint to opposite party no.3/ Superintendent of Police, Balrampur against respondent no.4 on 19.05.2018 and also made a complaint to opposite party no.2/ Director General of Police, Lucknow to take suitable action against opposite party no.4 but no steps were taken by the police authorities in the matter in view of undue pressure exercise by opposite party no.4.
Petitioner also submits that he and Shakir Ali were beaten. In order to establish this fact, petitioner has relied on the medical examination done by District Hospital, Balrampur , a copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.10 to the writ petition.
Thereafter petitioner made a complaint to opposite party no.3/ Superintendent of Police, Balrampur against opposite party no.4 but nothing was done on the one hand and on the other hand opposite party no.4 registered a case bearing F.I.R. No. 119 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. against the petitioner with the collusion of Abdul Salam . Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.20381 (MB) of 2018 with the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no.1 for transferring the investigation of case crime no.0119 of 2018 under Sections 323,504,506 and 452 I.P.C., Police Station Utraula District Balrampur lodged by opposite party no.6 against the petitioners to any other independent investigating agency or any other district to fair and proper investigation in the interest of Justice.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 for giving security to the petitioner no.1 for safety of the life and liberty of the petitioner no.1 in the interest of justice.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no.1 for ensuring the fair and proper investigation in accordance with law.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 for taking legal action against the opposite party no.4 for securing the ends of justice.
(v) Issue any writ or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice.
(vi) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner."
Thereafter petitioner also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2018 on the basis of which a complaint case no. M 472 of 2018 ( Mohd. Masood Raza Vs. S.H.O. Santosh Kumar) was registered on 25.09.2018 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur.
Due to said facts, opposite party no.4 was personally prejudiced from petitioner in lodging the F.I.R. as well as complaint case so petitioner having no alternative remedy except to approach this Court by filing present writ petition with the following relief:-
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner and his family members and also not to take coercive action except according procedure established by law.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to provide adequate security to the petitioner and his family members.
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to transfer the Magisterial Enquiry dated 24.08.2018 to the C.B.I. or any other agency except Balrampur District authorities as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice."
On 18.04.2019, this Court has passed an order, which reads as under:-
"The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner and his family members and also not to take coercive action.
The present petition is filed seeking protection against the false accusation by the Police Authorities, specially respondent No.4, and also prayed for adequate security. He further submitted that he has completed his L.L.B. and worked as a law clerk in Allahabad High Court and he is presently practicing Advocate in the High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Petitioner has submitted that he filed P.I.L. Civil No.6630 of 2018 (Mohammad Masood Raza Vs. State of U.P. and others) against non action of authorities, as M/s Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited, Itai Maida, Balrampur was discharging its hazardous wastes material which contains toxic chemicals which is harmful to the human being as well as flora and fauna. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2018 and the U.P. Pollution Control Board was directed to take steps in accordance with law with a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner. The petitioner sent a representation dated 20.03.2018 for compliance. As due to filing of the aforesaid P.I.L. the opposite party No.4 was annoyed, he starting harassing.
On 16.05.2018 one Shakir Ali came to the petitioner for legal assistance, as he was assaulted and grievously hurt by the relatives of one Abdul Salam. In this regard Shakir Ali tried to lodge the First Information Report as he sustained head injury, but due to collusion of the respondent No.4 with the accused persons, instead of lodging First Information Report an NCR No.0047 of 2018, under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. dated 27.04.2018 was lodged. On 16.05.2018 when petitioner was informed by Shakir Ali about threats being given to him from some other people, the petitioner along with Shakir Ali went to lodge a complaint before the respondent No.4, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh (S.H.O.). The respondent No.4 started threatening the petitioner of dire consequences and assaulted, when the petitioner resisted. He was challanned under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. and Shakir Ali was released on 16.05.2018 at 8:30 p.m. by the S.D.M. Utraula on furnishing sureties for bail. As the petitioner made a complaint, but no action was taken place.
Petitioner has also submitted that on the behest of the respondent No.4 Abdul Salam lodged an FIR against his client Shakir Ali and the petitioner is also rouding. As the petitioner filed a complaint case No.472 of 2018 (Mohammad Masood Raza Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, (S.H.O.) in which the proceedings is going on in the Court of C.J.M. Balrampur, but the respondent No.4 and local police officers are making pressure for withdrawal of the complaint and a threat was also given that he would be involved in a number of cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on behest of the respondent No.4, the petitioner is being victimized.
On the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the Director General, C.B.C.I.D is directed to make an enquiry about the aforesaid allegation by the officer not below the rank of S.P. and place the enquiry report before this Court on next date of listing.
Notice be issued to respondent No.4 through respondent No.5.
List on 24.05.2019."
Thereafter, this Court has passed an order dated 24.05.2019 , which reads as under:-
"Heard Mohd. Masood Raza in person as well as Shri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General, who has appeared before this Court on our directions.
This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner and his family members and also not to take coercive action. A further writ of mandamus is sought directing respondent no. 1 to provide adequate security to the petitioner and his family members.
Vide earlier order dated 18th April, 2019, Director General, C.B.C.I.D. was directed to make an inquiry about the allegations made in the petition, by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and place the inquiry report before this Court. The order dated 18.04.2019 reads as under:
"The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner and his family members and also not to take coercive action.
The present petition is filed seeking protection against the false accusation by the Police Authorities, specially respondent No.4, and also prayed for adequate security. He further submitted that he has completed his L.L.B. and worked as a law clerk in Allahabad High Court and he is presently practicing Advocate in the High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Petitioner has submitted that he filed P.I.L. Civil No.6630 of 2018 (Mohammad Masood Raza Vs. State of U.P. and others) against non action of authorities, as M/s Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited, Itai Maida, Balrampur was discharging its hazardous wastes material which contains toxic chemicals which is harmful to the human being as well as flora and fauna. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2018 and the U.P. Pollution Control Board was directed to take steps in accordance with law with a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner. The petitioner sent a representation dated 20.03.2018 for compliance. As due to filing of the aforesaid P.I.L. the opposite party No.4 was annoyed, he starting harassing.
On 16.05.2018 one Shakir Ali came to the petitioner for legal assistance, as he was assaulted and grievously hurt by the relatives of one Abdul Salam. In this regard Shakir Ali tried to lodge the First Information Report as he sustained head injury, but due to collusion of the respondent No.4 with the accused persons, instead of lodging First Information Report an NCR No.0047 of 2018, under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. dated 27.04.2018 was lodged. On 16.05.2018 when petitioner was informed by Shakir Ali about threats being given to him from some other people, the petitioner along with Shakir Ali went to lodge a complaint before the respondent No.4, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh (S.H.O.). The respondent No.4 started threatening the petitioner of dire consequences and assaulted, when the petitioner resisted. He was challanned under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. and Shakir Ali was released on 16.05.2018 at 8:30 p.m. by the S.D.M. Utraula on furnishing sureties for bail. As the petitioner made a complaint, but no action was taken place.
Petitioner has also submitted that on the behest of the respondent No.4 Abdul Salam lodged an FIR against his client Shakir Ali and the petitioner is also rouding. As the petitioner filed a complaint case No.472 of 2018 (Mohammad Masood Raza Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, (S.H.O.) in which the proceedings is going on in the Court of C.J.M. Balrampur, but the respondent No.4 and local police officers are making pressure for withdrawal of the complaint and a threat was also given that he would be involved in a number of cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on behest of the respondent No.4, the petitioner is being victimized.
On the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the Director General, C.B.C.I.D is directed to make an enquiry about the aforesaid allegation by the officer not below the rank of S.P. and place the enquiry report before this Court on next date of listing.
Notice be issued to respondent No.4 through respondent No.5.
List on 24.05.2019.
An application being Crl. Misc. Application No. 58691 of 2019 has been moved on behalf of respondent no. 4 in the present petition for recall of the order dated 18.04.2019 on the ground that the said order was passed ex parte. The application was listed on 9th May, 2019, on which date, the following order was passed:
"This is an application for recall of the order dated 18.04.2019.
Put up with the record before the appropriate Bench.
The petitioner, who is also present before this Court, has submitted that he is so terrorized by the action of the Police that he prays for security till the next date of listing.
Let the matter be placed before the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi. Sri Shahi is requested that he may look into the record of the case and be prepared for arguments on the next date fixed. He may also be required to inform the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P. about this case. The security of the petitioner should be ensured.
This order has been passed keeping in view Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
In pursuance to the aforesaid orders, affidavit of compliance has been filed by learned A.G.A., which is sworn by Shri Jay Prakash, Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow along with the Inquiry Report No. CB-64/19 dated 20th May, 2019.
From the said report, it is evident that statements of 22 persons were recorded by Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D./Inquiry Officer. General diary?s entries along with 11 other documents were also examined. On the basis of aforesaid, Inquiry Officer gave his finding that respondent no. 4, Shri Santosh Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur acted illegally and has wrongly challaned the petitioner under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. on 16th May, 2018 and recommended for registration of F.I.R. on the complaint of petitioner-Mohd. Masood Raza against Santosh Kumar Singh, then S.H.O., P.S. Utraula. The Inquiry Officer also recommended for further investigation of Case Crime No. 119 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Utraula, District Balrampur, which was lodged on certain complaint of Abdul Salam s/o Islam Ali dated 18.05.2018 at 12.55 hrs. in which charge sheet was filed on 20.05.2018. The Inquiry Officer also recommended for disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 with the observation that the proceedings under Section 110-G Cr.P.C. dated 29th May, 2018 were initiated by the then S.H.O., Shri Santosh Kumar Singh with the mala fide intention against the petitioner-Mohd. Masood Raza, Hasmat Raza and Sakir Ali. As a detailed inquiry has been conducted by a responsible officer under the order of this Court, therefore, there is no occasion to disbelieve the same.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the inquiry report, Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow is directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of recommendations given by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D./Inquiry Officer within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Learned A.G.A. shall ensure communication of this order along with the affidavit of compliance report containing the inquiry report to Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow.
List on 16.08.2019 for further hearing.
In the meantime, learned A.G.A. is directed to file an affidavit annexing therewith the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow in the matter."
Needless to mention herein that on the basis of affidavit of compliance filed by Awanish Kumar Awasthi, Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow in regard to averments made in para 5 of the affidavit has stated as under:-
"The State Government after perusing the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 25.-05.2019 has taken a decision on 07.08.2019, in view of the recommendations of the CBCID in its enquiry, which was conducted in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, which are as under:-
¼1½ Fkkuk mrjkSyk] tuin & cyjkeiqj es fnukad 16&05&2018 dks /kkjk 151] 107] 116 lhvkjihlh es dh x;h dk;Zokgh ds laca/k es f'kdk;rdrkZ eks0 elwn jtk ds izkFkZuk &i= ij vfHk;ksx iathd`r djkdj foospuk djk;h tk;A  ¼2½ eq0v0la0&119@18 /kkjk 323] 504] 506] 452 Hkknfo dksrokyh mrjkSyk] tuin cyjkeiqj dh foospuk ljljh rkSj ij dh x;h gSA mDr vfHk;ksx dh 173¼8½ ds vUrxZr vfxze foospuk djk;h tk;A  ¼3½ eks0 elwn jtk] gler jtk o lkfdj ds fo:) fnukad29&05&2018 dks 110 th lhvkjihlh dh dk;Zokgh dnk';rk ls dh x;h izrhr gksrh gSA bl laca/k es fujh{kd larks"k dqekj flag ds fo:) m0iz0 iqfyl vf/kdkfj;k@sa deZpkfj;ksa dh ¼n.M ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1991 ds fu;e 14 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA It has been decided that on recommendation Nos. 1 on the first information report be registered and its investigation be done by CB CID only and on Recommendation No.2, the CB CID would conduct further investigation and on recommendation No. 3, the departmental enquiry would be conducted and concluded within 15 days, against the Inspector, Santosh Kumar Singh. Photostat copy of the order dated 07.08.2019 is being filed herewith as Annexure No. A1 to this Affidavit."
Thereafter opposite party no.4 against the order dated 18.04.2019 and 24.05.2019 filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8222-8224/2019 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Mohammad Masood Raza and others) before Hon'ble the Apex Court.The same was disposed of by order dated 20.09.2019 which on reproduction reads as under:-
"In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it is not considered necessary to record the facts except to the extent necessary for purpose of the present order so as not to prejudice either party.
The Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. has already taken a decision on the Inquiry Report as directed by the High Court. The F.I.R. has not been lodged yet.
Suffice it to state that we are not inclined to interfere with the directions of the High Court with regard to inquiry and also the inquiry report subsequently submitted to the extent that it directs departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
Needless to state that inquiry report having been submitted after grant of due opportunity to the petitioner also, he shall have full opportunity for his defence in the course of the departmental proceedings, if any.
The present order is confined to the issue with regard to the recommendation for institution of an F.I.R. against the petitioner pursuant to the directions of the High Court for an inquiry Since the order was passed ex-parte despite the fact that the petitioner was impleaded as respondent no.4 and the recall petition filed by the petitioner has also been rejected, we dispose the Special Leave Petitions with the observation granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for any clarification/ modification of the order only insofar as the aspect of an F.I.R. is concerned.
Needless to state that nothing in the present order should be construed as expression of any opinion by us and it is for the High Court to take decision in the matter to its satisfaction.
The Special Leave to Petition stand disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
It is also brought to our notice, on the basis of documents which are on record, by learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 that in pursuance of order dated 24.05.2019 passed by this Court a departmental inquiry has been initiated against opposite party no.4 under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal ) Rules, 1991.
Sri R.C. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 on the basis of affidavit which has been filed by opposite party no.4, submits that when the matter in question was referred to CBCID as per order passed by this Court, petitioner had deliberately and willfully concealed the fact in respect to passing of order on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered in pursuance of order passed by this Court bearing complaint case no. M 472 of 2018 ( Mohd. Masood Raza Vs. S.H.O. Santosh Kumar) was registered on 25.09.2018 and the same is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur.
Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also submits that petitioner willfully and deliberately concealed the correct facts before this Court by filing present writ petition as well as CBCID he got favourable order, so the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Sri R.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 in order to elaborate his arguments, further submits that during inquiry made by CBCID, petitioner has neither stated the fact that a complaint case is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in the matter in question nor the said fact has not been brought before the CBCID, so in view of the said facts, petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he has deliberately and willfully concealed the true facts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made certain arguments in the matter in question. Later on, he submits that present writ petition may be disposed of with the direction to the police authorities of District Balrampur not to take coercive measure against the petitioner and his family members.
Sri S.P.Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has assured this Court that police authorities of district Balrampur shall not take any coercive measure against the petitioner and his family members unless and until any criminal case is pending against him.
For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the police authorities of district Balrampur shall not take any coercive measure against the petitioner and his family members unless and until any credible evidence is available in any criminal case lodged against him.
Further, we also direct that if the allegation of the complaint case and the offence mentioned in inquiry report submitted by CBCID is similar and identical, no coercive action, i.e. to say (no F.I.R. shall be lodged against opposite party no.4 as recommended by the competent authority in pursuance of earlier order passed by this Court on 24.05.2019), shall be taken against opposite party no.4. However, if there is some material difference between the same then it will be open to the competent authority, if so advised, may take appropriate action against opposite party no.4 in respect of lodging of F.I.R. .
(Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 26.2.2020 dk/