Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 494 (GAU)

Parimal CH. Acharjee v. State of Assam and Ors.

2008-07-02

B.P.KATAKEY, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2008
B.P. Katakey, J 1. The petitioner, who is a lecturer of Political Science in Lumding College, by the present petition has prayed for the following reliefs : - (i) A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing and commanding the respondents to look into the allegations of the petitioners; (ii) A writ of like nature should not be issued directing and commanding the respondents especially the respondent No. 4 not to harass/arrest the petitioner during the time of his interview for the post of Principalship and his law final year exam; (iii) A writ of the like nature should not be issued directing and commanding the respondent No. 4 to do preliminary investigation in case of any further FIRs are lodged against the petitioner. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that in the past he was subjected to unnecessary harassment by the Principal-in-Charge of the College as well as by the respondent No. 4, Mr. Nepal Das, Officer-in-charge of Lumding Police Station and was also arrested in connection with a criminal case registered against him making false accusation. According to the petitioner though pursuant to the order passed by this court in a writ petition filed by him, his application for the post of Principal of Lumding College was forwarded to the State Selection Board, he is apprehending harassment again at the hands of the respondent No. 4 with a view to deprive him from appearing in the selection to be conducted in the month of July 2008 for the post of Principal by the State Selection Board and also in the LL.B. Part III examination scheduled to be held from 14th July to 14th August 2008. The petitioner, therefore, by the present petition has prayed for directing the respondent No. 3 not to harass/arrest him during the time of his interview for the post of Principal and also the Law final year examination. 3. A further prayer has also been made for directing the respondent No. 4 to conduct investigation, in case any further first information report is lodged against him, before taking any action against him by the police. 4. We have heard Mrs. S.P. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4. We have heard Mrs. S.P. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 5. It is apparent from the statements made in the writ petition that a number of first information reports were lodged against the petitioner alleging commission of different offences. On the basis of such first information reports, Lumding Police Station Case Nos. 39/2006, 1017 2007 and 108/2007, apart from GR case No. 945/2006 have been registered against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the said cases are false and concocted. This court, at this stage and in the present proceeding cannot go into the question as to whether such allegations against the petitioner are concocted and false. 6. The learned State counsel on instruction has submitted that in the three criminal cases the petitioner has been charge sheeted for commission of bailable offence and he is presently on bail. It has further been contended by the learned State counsel that apart from these three criminal cases no further first information report has been lodged as on date against the petitioner and as such no criminal investigation is presently pending against him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed such factual position relating to the charge sheets filed in the three criminal cases against the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, in our considered opinion, no order as prayed for by the petitioner need be passed. However, it is made clear that in the event any fresh first information report is lodged against the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.