HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8209 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vipul Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, particularly opposite party numbers 1 to 4 to constitute a Joint Team of police officials not below the rank of Circle Officer/Inspector of districts Shravasti and Bahraich to enquire the act and conduct of opposite party numbers 7 and 8 in lodging of First Information Reports in different Police Stations of both the Districts and take appropriate action against opposite party numbers 7 and 8 so that they may not abuse the process of law and Court in respect of provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in future; ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of further mandamus so as to command the opposite parties to recover the amount of compensation, if any paid to the opposite party no.7 & 8, under provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules framed thereunder, for lodging of false first information report and thereafter by having entered into compromise with the accused in such criminal cases. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sharif Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of further mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to harass and victimize the petitioner on the basis of false complaints/applications made by opposite party numbers 7 and 8." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are respectable persons of the society. The petitioner no.1 is member of Block Development Committee (B.D.C.) from Ward No.29, Development Block Gilaula, district Shravasti and petitioner no.2 is his brother. The private respondents 7 and 8 are habitual and active in false implication of several persons of the area in criminal cases on the behest of some other persons to extract money as a result petitioner no.2 was implicated on a complaint filed by respondent no.7 in proceeding under Sections 107, 126 and 135 B.N.S.S., police station Harudutt Nagar Grunt, district Shravasti on 02.07.2025 and, later on, again preventive action was taken against petitioner no.2 on a complaint filed by respondent no.7 in proceeding under Sections 107, 126 and 135 B.N.S.S., police station Harudutt Nagar Grunt, district Shravasti on 27.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid submission is substantiated from the fact that respondent no.7 lodged a first information report against one Altaf son of Maniuddin on 17.08.2023 at police station Matera, district Bahraich in Case Crime No.0175 of 2023, under Sections 354 (Kha), 323 and 506 IPC and again on 29.02.2024 in Case Crime No.0037 of 2024, under Sections 376-D and 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, police station Sonwa, district Shravasti only with the intention to extract money from aforesaid accused. 5. He further submits that as the respondent no.7 is adamant to implicate the petitioners in false case, she moved an application on 08.07.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti as also Station House Officer of concerned police station and when no action was taken, she preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6590 of 2025 (Suman Devi Vs. State of U.P. and CRLP No. 8209 of 2025 2 others) with the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus for registering first information report against the petitioners and also fair and proper investigation in the matter, which was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 with the liberty to respondent no.7 to take appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC or under Section 200 CrPC. He further submits that as per his information, an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC has already been filed before the competent court. He, thus, submits that in view of the facts stated above, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary by issuing a direction for consideration of Special Investigating Team for conducting a fact finding enquiry for the fact that private respondents 7 and 8 are habitual in lodging false and fabricated first information report against respectable persons of the society with the intention to extract money etc. 6. Learned State Law Officer representing the State- respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that after detailed investigation, in first information report no.0037 of 2024 charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and in another case i.e. Case Crime No.0175 of 2023, final report has been submitted on the ground that no evidence was found by the Investigating Officer. He drew attention of the Court to the document annexed as Annexure No.6 to this petition, which is police report dated 16.07.2025 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bahraich in which it is mentioned that respondent no.7 (Smt. Suman) is associated with petitioner no.2 and she lodged first information report against Aftab. The report further reveals that petitioners themselves are associated with respondent no.7. He submits that only with the intention to divert the issue, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners and also the fact that petitioners have admitted that application under Section 156 (3) CrPC has been filed by respondent no.7 before the competent court therefore, prayers made by the petitioners cannot be granted. CRLP No. 8209 of 2025 3 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of first information report as well as Challani report as well as the order passed by this Court, it is evident that twice preventive action was taken against petitioner no.2 and he was enlarged upon furnishing personal bond as well as sureties. The said cases are pending before the competent court and the same have not been challenged by the petitioners. Thereafter again a complaint was also made by respondent no.7 and, later on, she preferred criminal writ petition before this Court, which was disposed off by giving liberty to her to take appropriate remedy under Section 156 (3) CrPC or under Section 200 CrPC, therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. September 9, 2025 Rks. CRLP No. 8209 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench