Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1927 (ALL)

Rahul Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2023-08-10

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2023
ORDER : 1. List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this case. 2. Mr. Anuradha Sundram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present. 3. At very outset, learned Standing Counsel states that this is complainant's petition and the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file such petition, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (10) ADJ 1 (FB), and the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2013 (1) ADJ 228 . 4. In view of the above, the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file the petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. Before parting with the order, this Court feels it necessary to deal with practice of affidavits filing in such petitions that today, two petitions, i.e. Writ-C Nos.26718 of 2023 : Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. and 26639 of 2023 : Jaidev vs. Sate of U.P. and 2 Ors. are listed. Affidavits in both of the cases are sworn by one Kamas Singh, who in one petition, i.e. Writ-C Nos.26718 of 2023, described himself to be family member of the petitioner therein, namely, Rahul Kumar and in Writ-C No. 26639 of 2023, which is dismissed as not pressed, as friend of the petitioner therein, namely, Jaidev. It is strange that the petitioner, Rahul Kumar has shown his address, i.e. resident of Vill-Muzaffarnagar Keshon, Block Mohd. Pur Devmal, Tehsil & District-Bijnor, whereas the residence of deponent is of different place, i.e. Vill-Bhamourapatti, Bhamori Patti, District-Sambhal. Thus the relation mentioned by the deponent as family member of the petitioners appears to be doubtful. 7. The address of the deponent mentioned in both the cases with respect to his relation with the petitioners stinks upon genuineness. To divulge the real fact, affidavit of the deponent; Kamas Singh is necessary. Accordingly, he is required to file an affidavit explaining his relation, specifically, with both the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions, within two weeks, which shall be kept on record by the office. 8. To divulge the real fact, affidavit of the deponent; Kamas Singh is necessary. Accordingly, he is required to file an affidavit explaining his relation, specifically, with both the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions, within two weeks, which shall be kept on record by the office. 8. The Stamp Reporter shall take care of the fact that in such cases the affidavit be filed by the petitioner himself/herself or his/her family member. 9. Here, it is also pertinent that the stamp reporter will also adhere to the directions with respect to filing of affidavits in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Smt. Shabista Praveen vs. State of U.P. and Another, Writ-C No.22385 of 2023, decided on 09.08.2023. 10. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to remain attentive while verifying affidavits in such cases. 11. Registrar Compliance is directed to communicate this order to all concerned for its compliance forthwith.