# Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 6 ILRA 279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-06-13
- **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla, Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indra-pal-singh-i-p-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44066
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

6 All. Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

279
the alleged receipt contained as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit is concerned, this was not
available with the courts concerned and in these proceedings the court is not expected to entertain
fresh evidence before it for the purpose of determination of interim maintenance. This issue can be
sorted out finally before the court concerned, but as of now orders impugned cannot be faulted on
this score.

20. Copy of the objections filed by the applicant to the interim maintenance application
though not annexed with the record was placed before the court by the applicant himself. It does
not contain any rebuttal by him of the Protection Officer's report, therefore, the court below cannot
be faulted on this count also.

21. Having gone through the impugned orders this court does not find any such
jurisdictional or legal error so as to interfere in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 except to the extent that the courts below have erred in awarding maintenance to the
major child Ashmita Singh, therefore, the impugned order only to this extent is set aside.
Remaining part sofar as it relates to the amount of maintenance to the wife and the other child
Anupama Singh is concerned, same is sustained subject to the condition that Anupama Singh shall
be entitled to such maintenance under the Act only till she attains the age of 18 years.

22. This shall, however, not prejudice the adjudication of all the relevant issues involved in
the complaint by the court concerned under the Act finally. The application is partly allowed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.06.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 13915 Of 2016

Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Asok Pande, Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Tripuresh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondents:
Govt. Advoctae, A.S.G., Amarjeet Singh Ranhra

Head Notes:
Public Interest Litigation-Maintainability-Political person-Personal and political grievanceCamouflaged PIL-Abuse of process-Dismissal with costs.
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Constitution of India-Articles 14, 19, 21-Direction for registration of FIR-Alternative statutory
remedy under Cr.P.C.-No exceptional circumstances-Writ not maintainable.
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952-Appointment of Commission-Challenge on religious
grounds-Impermissibility-Secular character of Constitution-Scandalising pleadings.
Advocates Act, 1961-Professional misconduct-Reckless and scandalous drafting-Communal
averments-Reference to Bar Council-Disciplinary proceedings.
A writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation seeking (i) quashing of appointment of a retired Judge as
head of a Commission of Inquiry on the ground of his religion and (ii) direction for registration of FIR against
police officers and transfer of investigation to CBI, arising out of Jawahar Bagh incident, Mathura-Petitioner
being a political person and spokesperson of a political party-Petition lacking material particulars of incident
and bona fides-Held, petition not a genuine PIL but filed for political mileage and publicity-Relief for
registration of FIR declined as alternative remedy under Cr.P.C. available and not exhausted-No compelling
circumstances pleaded.
Further held, challenge to appointment of Commission of Inquiry on religious considerations is
unconstitutional and contrary to secular ethos-Religion irrelevant in appointment to public office-Pleadings
scandalising the judiciary and constitutional functionaries deprecated-Petition dismissed with exemplary
costs.
Court further took serious note of conduct of counsel in drafting reckless, communal and scandalous
pleadings-Held, conduct prima facie amounts to professional misconduct-Matter directed to be referred to
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for disciplinary action.

Held:
PIL jurisdiction:
Petition filed by a political person with personal and political motives is not maintainable as PIL.
Registration of FIR:
When statutory remedies under Cr.P.C. are available, writ court will not ordinarily issue mandamus for
registration of FIR.
Commission of Inquiry:
Appointment of a Judge to head a Commission cannot be questioned on grounds of religion-Such pleadings
violate constitutional principles.
Professional misconduct:
Scandalous, communal and reckless pleadings by an advocate warrant reference to Bar Council under
Advocates Act, 1961.

RESULT:
Writ petition dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/-, recoverable as arrears of land revenue on default.
Registrar directed to refer matter to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against counsel.
Clarified that observations are prima facie and Bar Council to decide independently on merits.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. The registry has raised an objection for deposition of Rs. 25,000/- by Mr. Asok Pande
before entertaining the petition to be filed by him, whereas, in the present case Mr. Pande has
appeared as counsel, therefore, we are of the view that as and when he appears as counsel the
observation of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8216 (M/B) of 2016 for deposition of cost of Rs.
25,000/- shall have no bearing, in the result the objection is overruled and the writ petition is
entertained.
6 All. Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

281
2. We have heard Mr. Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Bulbul Godiyal,
Additional Solicitor General and Sri Jagdeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.

3. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"a) To issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the decision of the state
government dated 7/06/2016 thereby appointing a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court
namely Sri Imtiaz Murtaza to hold the enquiry into the Jawaharbagh incident in which two police
officers and several common citizens has been murdered after summoning the same and to direct
the government to appoint the commission headed by some judge well versed with the Hindu
Dharma.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents concerned to
register the first information report against the police officers for committing the murder of several
persons and to entrust the investigation of the said case to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

c) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case."

4. At this stage, the petitioner has sought permission to not press the relief no. (a).

5. Permission is granted.

6. Now the petitioner has pressed the writ petition only for the relief no. (b).

7. The writ petition stands dismissed for the reasons to follow.

8. The operative part of the order was passed in the open court, the reasons in support of
the order was deferred for paucity of time which is being supplied.

9. The petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been instituted by Sri
Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) son of Sri Surya Nath Singh. The credentials of the petitioner is
detailed in paragraph 5, which reads as follows:

"That the petitioner is a social activist and the spokes person of Bhartiya Janta Party,
he was also the student leader and has held the office of general secretary of the Lucknow
University students Union. He was also the chairman of Uttar Pradesh Labor Federation for some
time. At present he is aggrieved by the massacre of the Satyagrahies and conversion of
Jawaharbagh Park into Jaliawalabagh and so approaches the Hon'ble Court for the Central Bureau
of Investigation enquiry."
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to register a First Information Report
against the police officers for committing murder of several persons and to entrust the investigation
of the said case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The subject matter of the petition
pertains to an incident that occurred at Jawahar Bagh Park at Mathura purportedly on 2 June 2016.
The occupants were evicted from the park by the District administration pursuant to an order
passed by this Court in Vijay Pal Singh Tomar Versus State of U.P. and others1. The direction
(dated 20 May 2015)is extracted:

"Having regard to the statement of law laid down by this Court, we are of the view
that the authorities of the State including the Principal Secretary (Home), District Magistrate,
Mathura and Senior Superintendent of Police must take all necessary steps and precautions to
ensure that a public park is not allowed to be encroached upon in this manner. The rule of law has
to be preserved. Unless a strong message is sent out, it would only result in a situation where a
violation of law is encouraged by permitting an encroachment on public spaces in violation of the
law.

 Accordingly, we direct the respondents to inquire into the matter and take
appropriate action in accordance with law expeditiously."

11. Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend: (i) the park (Jawahar
Bagh) was not encroached but was occupied by the occupants upon permission obtained from the
concerned authorities, though they had overstayed; (ii) satyagraha was peaceful, the satyagrahis
were not assailants; (iii) criminal force was not used by the satyagrahis in attacking the police
personnel; (iv) F.I.R. was not lodged against erring police officers for the murder of 32 persons; (v)
the matter relates to a dispute with respect to a Hindu religious outfit, therefore, it is improper to
appoint a Muslim Judge to enquire into a purely religious matter, (vi) under the garb of a direction
issued by the High Court to evict the satyagrahis, the police could not have resorted to excessive
force killing 32 civilians .

12. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the petition contending:
(i) the petition is not maintainable as it has been instituted by a political person; (ii) the averments
in the petition is scandalizing, (iii) under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 (Act 1952) the
State has power to appoint a retired Judge to conduct the enquiry.

13. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions and submissions, it would be
appropriate to scan through the pleadings.

14. The petitioner admittedly is a political person being spokesperson of a national political
party and is personally aggrieved. In paragraph 10 of the petition, it is averred that the satyagraha
by the occupants was peaceful, the satyagrahis were not assailants, further, the occupants of the
park have a fundamental right to assemble in a public place. The force used by the police personnel
to evict the satyagrahis resulting in the death of 32 civilians is an example of excessive force
6 All. Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

283
inflicted against the occupants. The State including the Home Secretary and Director General of
Police are defending the police action.

15. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it has been categorically pleaded that in appointing
Justice Imtiaz Murtaza a former Judge of the High Court to enquire into the incident, being a
muslim, would not be justified as the issue pertains to a hindu religious outfit related to Baba Jai
Gurudev, therefore, it is averred that some Judge well versed with Hindu culture and Dharma
should be appointed to enquire the matter. Paragraph 19 of the petition reads as follows:

"That the petitioner is praying for the quashing of the justice Imtiaz Murtaza
Commission for the reason that the matter relates to a dispute with respect to a Hindu religious
outfit and so it is improper to appoint a Muslim Judge to enquire into a purely religious matter
related with Baba Jai Gurudev and so in place of Sri Imtiaz Murtaza, some judge well versed with
Hindu culture and Dharma should be appointed to enquire the matter. The petitioner also want to
change the head of the enquiry commission from Sri Imtiaz Murtaza to some another judge as it
will be difficult for Sri Murtaza himself to understand the basic problem which is one of the reason
of Ram Vrikchh Yadav coming to Mathura and staying there for more than 2 years in Jawahar Bag
Park where the incident took place".

16. In paragraph 20, assertions have been made that the investigation of the incident at
Mathura be transferred to CBI, though no such prayer has been made but was verbally pressed by
Sri Pande.

17. Only prayer pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents be
directed to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the police officers

18. In our opinion, such a direction at this stage cannot be issued as the petitioner, under
the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), can himself lodge a F.I.R. or take recourse to the procedure
prescribed therein by approaching the concerned Magistrate. A direction for which remedy is
available under law would not generally be issued by the Court unless compelling circumstances in
not registering the F.I.R. is pleaded and supported by documents showing the bonafide intention of
the petitioner. The entire petition is bereft of the material details of the unfortunate incident that
occurred at the park. The details leading to the incident has not been pleaded. How and why the
park was occupied; whether prior permission was obtained from the district authorities; the number
of occupants, their composition i.e. number of men, women and children assembled in the park has
not been given by the petitioner. The dynamics and the economics of the supply of food and
lodging of occupants in sustaining themselves for two years is missing. Whether the occupants
were members of a militant outfit shielding themselves behind innocent persons, including women
and children, is not known to the petitioner. Whether any arms and ammunitions were seized from
the occupants, if yes, how did it reach the park has not been explained, rather the petitioner, though
being a political person, has maintained an eerie silence.
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The petitioner neither the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have made any
effort to ever peruse the order passed in Vijay Pal Singh Tomar case (supra). The Court noticed
therein that an organisation in the name of Swadheen Bharat Vidhik Satyagrah also known as
Swadheen Bharat Subhash Sena occupied the park since 11 January 2014. The District Magistrate
on 15 August 2014 addressed a communication to the Chief Secretary of the State Government
regarding unauthorized occupation of the park by a group of persons. The District Horticulture
Officer, Mathura also addressed a communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura
on 17 March 2015 with a copy to the Divisional Commissioner and the Collector, Mathura for
necessary action. The letter records that two thousand four hundred trees have been burnt by the
occupants illegally occupying the park, causing damage to the property of the State. On 27 April
2015, the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra has addressed a communication to the Collector and
Senior Superintendent of Police noting that members of Swadheen Bharat Vidhik Satyagrahi (Jai
Gurudev) have taken over unlawful possession of the public park; that employees are being
assaulted and nearly three thousand trees have been destroyed for firewood.

20. On reading the petition and the averments made therein, we have no doubt in holding
that the petition which is styled as PIL is nothing but a camouflage to foster cheap and malicious
publicity. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel, that the petitioner before the court is a
political person and a busy body. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily the religion of the
Judge appointed to head the Commission of Inquiry under Act, 1952. Such a pleading laid and
pressed before a constitutional Court, admittedly, is against the constitutional scheme without any
foundation and basis. Religion has not been assigned any role in the appointment of judges of
commissions or for that matter for any office under the State, as such, the petition is not only
malicious but has been filed with an ulterior motive which tantamounts to interfere not only with
the judicial process but also goes to the root in questioning the constitutional scheme based on rule
of law.

21. Supreme Court in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Prem Chandra Mishra and
others2, observed as under:

"10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest
litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown
out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider
the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy
an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or
"private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income
litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public
interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful
thinking.....

17. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated
before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise could have been spent
6 All. Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

285
for disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and
whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our
opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving
properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to
death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in
incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or
private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or
unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of
getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for
personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the
mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions
and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue
standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in
the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our
judicial system." (Refer:The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary3, and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v.
Central Bureau of Investigation4. Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India5 and K.R. Srinivas v.
R.M. Premchand6.

22. Division Bench of this Court in Swami Prasad Maurya and another Versus State of
U.P. and others7, made the following observations:

"......A public purpose may be protected under a political theology or agenda of a
political or social entity, but the protection of a public purpose has to be in public interest and not
on mere political considerations. A legal battle for a public purpose cannot be utilised for settling
political scores................ A public purpose cannot be a game dice on the choice of politicians in a
legal arena. The wrestling theatre for achieving political mileage is elsewhere and not a court of
law......"

23. We need not burden the order by referring to the large number of judgments rendered
by the Apex Court on the scope and ambit of PIL. Having considered the statement of law, we are
of the view that the present petition is not a bonafide PIL but has been filed with some ulterior
motive to gain political millage and to scandalize not only the administration of justice, but also the
Government in appointing Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Imtiaz Murtaza, a former
Judge of this Court. We have recorded in the earlier part of the order that the necessary details of
the incident has not been spelled by the petitioner, nor did he approach any of the authorities in
lodging F.I.R. of the incident. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to suitably reply to the
specific query of the Court regarding petitioner not approaching any of the State Authorities. It is in
this background, we hold that the petition styled as PIL is not a genuine petition filed for the aid
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

and assistance of the families which have suffered due to the illegal occupation of the park by
members of a self styled organization.

24. As regards the conduct of Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be
noted that a Division Bench of this Court in Hindu Personal Law Board Versus Union of India
and others (Writ Petition No. 8216 (M/B) of 2016) vide order dated 19.04.2016 passed in a
petition, filed in the nature of a PIL by Sri Pande in person, the Court admonished the conduct of
Sri Pande and directed the Registry of this Court that each petition instituted by Sri Pande in person
be accepted for filing, only if, it is accompanied by a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/-.

25. In the given facts of this case, a serious issue on communal lines has been pleaded
tarnishing the image of the Judge merely for the reason of his religion, which has been the modus
operandi of Sri Pande in several earlier petitions drafted and filed by him.

26. We are constrained to take notice of the fact that Sri Pande, a practicing lawyer of this
Court, who has a standing at the Bar, however, since long has been indulging in reckless drafting,
which is not only malicious and motivated but the conduct of the counsel is unbecoming of a legal
practitioner which ultimately tantamounts to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act
1961). A professional duty includes the counseling to client, legal opinions, drafting, affidavits,
pleading and participating in law conferences. The duty requires, the counsel to maintain the
decorum of judicial proceedings, take great care and caution while drafting a petition without
tarnishing the image of any institution, office, Judge or the Constitution. The averments made in
para 19, which has been extracted hereinabove, would clearly indicate the reckless and causal
approach of the learned counsel. The averments specially seeking a direction to appoint a
commission headed by "some Judge well versed with the Hindu Dharma", further, "the persons
who murdered Satyagrahies are not properly prosecuted and punished, it will ruin the basic
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution and in any place in the country, if a
Satyagrah or Dharna on a particular issue by a particular group may be a political party or religious
outfit, will not suit the State Administration, the persons doing Satyagrah will be murdered in the
name of police action and encounter.", further, ground (h) reads as follows:

"even in the case of Ishrat Jehan, a lady accompanying with Pakistani terrorist and
their killing in police encounter, the CBI enquiry took place whereas in the present matter, the
persons who died were such citizens who left their house for years with the object to change the
present way of governance and peacefully protesting in a park, which was a public park and the
persons who gathered there were not the Pakistani terrorist, rather, the common citizens who were
protesting without any violence from more than 2 years."

27. The petition read as a whole and especially the averments extracted would, prima facie,
establish that it is a deliberate and willful act of the counsel, the reason is not for behind.

28. In Hindu Personal Law Board case (supra) where Sri Asok Pande appeared in person,
the Court taking notice of his conduct and drafting noted as under:-
6 All. Indra Pal Singh (I.P. Singh) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

287

"We find prima facie that the manner in which the petition has been drafted and an
effort has been made to target the Chairperson of the Organizing Committee at Lucknow, who is a
sitting Judge of the High Court, is a scandalous attempt to lower the dignity of the Court.

9. That it appears that this 'Harkat' to hurt the sentiments of Hindus was planned by
the Chairman of the organizing committee, Sri Shabibul Hasnain and his other religious men in the
High Court administration to give the befitting reply to the Governor Sri Ram Naik as during the
day session, in the presence of Sri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, Sri Ram Naik did Ram
Katha and congratulated the persons gathered there on the eve of the Navratri and Ram Navami

10. That it appears that only to give befitting reply to the Governor and other
Hindus, the evening culture program, which should have been started with Saraswati Vandana and
Vande Mataram started with Allah-hu, Allah-hu, in the name of so-called Sufi gayan."

29. Further, the Court noted that "the petitioner (Sri Pande) is habituated in filing petitions
ostensibly styled as public interest litigation. ........ On numerous occasions, various courts have
found Sri Ahok Pande to have indulged in drafting pleadings which would not give credit to a
member of the legal profession."

30. The details of the previous petitions filed by Sri Pande wherein malicious averments
were made was taken notice by the Division Bench. A petition, inter alia, sought to challenge the
appointment of the Governor of the State of U.P. which was dismissed being frivolous and highly
mischievous. Similarly, appointment of Lok Ayukta was assailed, in which, former Chief Justice, a
retired Judge of this Court and a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court were impleaded, wherein, the
Court while dismissing the petition was of the opinion that the petition reflected the personal
grouse of the petitioner regarding the Judges and orders passed by them and his own interpretation
of such orders. The Division Bench after taking notice of the earlier petitions drafted and filed by
Sri Pande passed the following orders:

"First and foremost, we direct the issuance of a notice to the petitioner and Shri Asok
Pande to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for committing criminal
contempt under the Contempt of Courts 1971.............We are of the view that before this Court
entertains a petition at the behest of the aforesaid entity and person, a direction should be and is
issued to the Registry to the effect that each petition be accepted for filing only if it is accompanied
by a Demand Draft of Rs 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) drawn on a nationalised
Bank. ......"

31. Similarly, in a subsequent petition being Writ Petition No. 5085 (M/B) of 2016,
Allama Zamir Naqvi, General Secretary of All India Muslim Council Versus State of U.P and
others, Shri Pande assailed the appointment of Justice Vishnu Sahai, a former Judge of this Court
and former Member of the U.P. Human Rights Commission as a one-man commission under the
Commission Enquiry Act 1952. The Division Bench repelling the argument for transferring the
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

investigation to CBI instead of a commission being appointed by the Government under the Act
1952, observed as follows:-

"The other argument with regard to setting up an investigation through the CBI
cannot be mixed up with the issue relating to the appointment of a Commission by the Government
under the 1952 Act. The issue of transferring a criminal investigation to the CBI has to be
founded on appropriate facts which are to be pleaded in order to persuade a Court of Law to
pass an order for taking up the investigation by some other agency. The present writ petition
as framed does not bring on record any such material that may impel us to draw a conclusion
that the investigation now deserves to be carried out by some other agency.

The question of entrusting the investigation to the CBI can only be considered if
there is sufficient material as delineated in the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural
Engineering Services, U.P. and others versus Sahngoo Ram Arya and another [(2002) 5 SCC
521]. It is no doubt true that the Constitution Bench in the case of State of West Bengal and others
versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others [(2010) 3 SCC
571] has acknowledged the powers of the Court to order an investigation by the CBI. The powers
of the Court are circumscribed and can be exercised only if there is sufficient material to do so as
per the ratio in the cases indicated above. Two other judgments may be mentioned where the
Supreme Court has traversed the law relating to the powers of the High Court in proceeding to
order for a CBI enquiry, namely, Bharati Tamang versus Union of India and others [(2013) 15
SCC 578] and Mithilesh Kumar Singh versus State of Rajasthan and others [(2015) 9 SCC
795]. The said issue has also been dealt with in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Pooja Pal versus Union of India and others [JT 2016 (1) SC 430]."

32. That apart, the tone and tenor of Sri Pande while addressing the Court is of arrogance
and threat which is also reflected from his body language. Upon being warned, Sri Pande would
insist on advancing arguments without taking care of maintaining the decorum and dignity of the
Court. Sri Pande would thereafter insist that his arguments be incorporated and noticed in the order
irrespective of its legal relevance.

33. Having considered the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that the petition styled as PIL is a frivolous, mischievous petition filed for
personal gains instituted at the behest of a person seeking publicity, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Collector
Lucknow within eight weeks from date, failing which, the District Magistrate, Lucknow shall
recover the sum as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner Indra Pal Singh.

35. The conduct of Sri Asok Pande in filing and drafting reckless petitions containing
scandalous pleadings and being motivated by personal agenda to malign the persons holding
constitutional positions tantamounts to misconduct unbecoming of a responsible legal practitioner
which is violative of the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder.
6 All. Kishan Pal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

289
36. Having due regard to the contents of the plethora of petitions drafted and filed by Sri
Pande and the averments made therein, we are, prima facie, of the opinion that Shri Pande is
incorrigible. Despite strictures and orders passed against him by the Court on several occasions, Sri
Pande has shown no remorse or regret, it would, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the
matter be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
Sri Pande to adjudge his suitability to continue practice as an Advocate.

37. Registrar is, therefore, directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairman, Bar
Council, U.P., Allahabad alongwith the order dated 19 April 2016 passed in Hindu Personal Law
Board Versus Union of India and others (Writ Petition No. 8216 (M/B) of 2016) for
compliance. It is expected that the Council would conclude the enquiry within three months from
the date of service of this order provided Sri Pande cooperates with the enquiry. It will be open for
the Council to consider as to whether the certificate to practice granted to Sri Pande needs to be
suspended during enquiry.

38. We clarify that the observations which are contained in this order on the facts which
have led to refer the matter to the Bar Council is only a prima facie expression of opinion of the
Court with regard to the conduct of Sri Pande, the Council shall pass order on merit without being
influenced by the observations made in the order.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.06.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 19255 Of 2016

Kishan Pal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Applicants:
Pratibha Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Revisional Order - Final Report - Protest
Petition - Powers of Magistrate - Locus Standi of Accused - Pre-Cognizance Stage - Prima Facie
Case - Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction

The applicants invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.,