The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on a man for filing repeated petitions against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath regarding the 2007 Gorakhpur riot case in spite of the issue being settled by the Supreme Court.
On January 27, 2007, a Hindu man was killed in a clash between two groups during a Muharram procession in Gorakhpur.
The petitioner Parvez Parwaz, a journalist, filed a complaint on September 26, 2008, alleging that Adityanath, the then local MP of the BJP, had delivered speeches seeking revenge for the death of the youth and that he had videos of the same.
Subsequently, the state government declined to grant sanction for prosecution.
UP mafia story: 3 of 66 named in police list now dead, cops on lookout for those absconding
Lotus motif for RS, peacock for LS: 900 artisans from UP weaved carpet for new Parliament building
‘State violence’ in UP giving birth to ‘gun culture’: Akhilesh Yadav on Noida university shootout
Oppn boycotting Parl building inauguration disgusting attempt to create controversy: UP CM
The applicant challenged the government decision before the high court which dismissed his petition. Later, he challenged the decision of the high court before the Supreme Court, which too dismissed it.
The applicant had challenged the decision of the trial court dated October 11, 2022, wherein the court had rejected the protest petition against the final report of police in the riot case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh dismissed the petition of Parwaz and another under section 482 (inherent powers of high court) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and imposed the cost of Rs 1 lakh which has to be deposited in the Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties within four weeks, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from estates/assets of the petitioner.
The court observed, “The petitioner appears to be a busy body who himself is facing several criminal cases, and he has been fighting this case since 2007. The petitioner must have been incurring huge expenses in engaging counsels to contest this case before the trial court, this court and the Supreme Court.”
Appearing for the applicant, senior advocate S F A Naqvi argued that the “question of legality of the order, refusing sanction for prosecution, was left open by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the issue had attained finality”.
Appearing for the state government, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that the “issues raised in the protest petition and in this petition had attained finality up to the Supreme Court”.
“The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same issues time and again,” he said.
The high court, after hearing the parties concerned, observed, “I find that the trial court has rightly refused to go into the said question once it has been decided by the Supreme Court.”