Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2023
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162994-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27059 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Kumar,Ashutosh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a practicing Advocate in District Court, Allahabad and he has been practicing since 2000. In the year 2001, as the petitioner was in need of a house, he contacted one Mahendra Singh, a clerk in Education Department involved in business of property dealing, and the petitioner paid Mahendra Singh Rs.8,00,000/- for purchase of land shown by him which was in the name of wife of Mahendra Singh. After arranging the rest amount, the petitioner asked Mahendra Singh for execution of sale deed, he denied the same and also refused to return the money paid to him by the petitioner. However, when the petitioner pressurized Mahendra Singh, he issued a cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient amount in the account. Thereafter, petitioner filed a case against Mahendra Singh under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was registered as Complaint Case No.392 of 2021. In the said case, Mahendra Singh was summoned but when he did not appear, ultimately N.B.W. was issued against him and proceedings under Section 82, 83 of Cr.P.C. has also been initiated. Being annoyed with the filing of said case, Mahendra Singh asked the petitioner to come to his place to settle the matter but when the petitioner went there he was brutally assaulted by Mahendra Singh and his associates. Petitioner lodged an FIR against Mahendra Singh on 31.7.2021 bearing Case Crime No.268 of 2021 under Sections 504, 506, 406, 420, 419 IPC, Police Station-George Town, District-Allahabad. Thereafter, Mahendra Singh again met with the petitioner and gave him another cheque of Rs.8,00,000, which was again dishonoured. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed another case under Section 138 of N.I. Act being Case No.640 of 2021. In connection with aforesaid cases, Mahendra Singh was arrested on 16.3.2023 and on the same day wife and son of Mahendra Singh along with anti social elements came to the chamber of petitioner and assulted with. Further, in the case related to N.I. Act, Mahendra Singh has been granted bail. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the last week of May, 2023 when he was going to the Court, he was stopped and threatened in the way by Mahendra Singh and his associates. Thereafter, petitioner has moved an application seeking protection before the Court below and vide order dated 29.3.2023, the Court below has directed respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's application. When the petitioner approached respondent no.2 along with order of Court below, his matter was referred to the concerned S.H.O., who instead of providing protection to the petitioner, challaned him under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. on 13.4.2023. Copy of the challan report has been filed as Annexure-7 to this petition. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there is threat perception to the petitioner and therefore the representation was made for providing protection.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the State Government has issued a Government order dated 9th May, 2014 for providing security, which provides that actual threat perception should exist and that on a mere apprehension security could not be provided. Further, the background, antecedent, criminal history and misuse of security are also relevant considerations to be examined objectively firstly by the District Level Committee. While considering the application for grant of security cover, the background antecedents, criminal history and misuse of security are relevant considerations, which are to be examined firstly by the District Level Committee. In case, the applicant is aggrieved with the order of District Level Committee, he can approach the Regional Level Committee and thereafter the State Level Committee.
4. In Writ C No.32729 of 2016 (Shrikant Tyagi vs. State of UP and 3 ors.) decided on 20.7.2016, this Court has observed that if the threat perception is still being received, it is open to the petitioner to move an application as per the Government Order dated 9.5.2014. In case, any application is moved by the petitioner, it is always expected that the concerned District Authority will consider the said application in accordance with law.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. The writ petition is disposed of asking the petitioner to move an appropriate application as contemplated under law before the concerned District Level Committee. In case, such application is moved by the petitioner within two weeks, the same shall be processed within four weeks further time, but certainly after taking necessary comments from all the stakeholders in the matter.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Manish Himwan