High Court

3. Shri Vivek Manishi Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State has informed the Court that the letter for compliance of the order dated 28.11.2024 was sent to all the opposite parties including Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, who have been impleaded as opposite party on that very date.

4. On being confronted opposite party no. 8 Sri Rehman submitted that in compliance of the letter aforesaid in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2024 he had sent instructions but there was no mention therein about filing any counter affidavit.

5. We have noted in our order dated 5.3.2025 that we had asked opp. party Nos. 2 and 4 to file separate affidavits vide our order dated 28.11.2024, but they had filed a common affidavit.

6. Sri Nishant Shukla, Standing Counsel says that the opp. party No. 2 has filed his separate affidavit on 12.3.2025, however, the computer record discloses that four counter affidavits have been filed today by opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8. These affidavits have been summoned and are taken on record.

7. The separate affidavits filed by opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 have no explanation in the affidavits as to why separate affidavits were not filed earlier in compliance of our order dated

28.11.2024 which has led to unnecessary procrastination of the proceedings and harassment of the petitioner apart from wasting time of the Court. On 28.11.2024, we had specifically asked them to file separate affidavits. Considering the issues involved, we wanted to have separate version of the officers, which was not done, but a common affidavit was filed, which compelled us to pass an order dated 05.03.2025 in the following terms:- "Heard. Despite our order dated 12.12.2024, respondent No.8- S.P., Economic Offences Wing has not filed his affidavit, on account of which the matter cannot be heard today. We do not accept such apathy on the part of the respondent No.8. Let him file the required affidavit positively by 12.03.2025, failing which he shall appear before this Court on 17.03.2025, when the case shall come up as fresh. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to communicate our order to respondent No.8. Moreover, we have also found that respondent Nos.2 and 4 have not filed their separate affidavits, as was directed, but a common affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 to 7. Prima facie, this amounts to contempt of order dated 12.12.2024. Last opportunity is granted to file such affidavit by 12.03.2025, failing which respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall also appear before this Court on the next date fixed."

8. Prior to it, on 12.12.2024 we had passed the following order:- "1. Heard.

2.The order dated 28.11.2024 reads as under : "1. Petitioner should implead Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Lucknow as an opposite party during course of the day.

2. Let learned Standing Counsel seek instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing as also the Officer who has passed the impugned order as to the material available against the petitioner regarding his involvement in FIR No. 133/2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti and how the impugned recommendation Annexure 1 can be justified in the year 2024 when the FIR has remained pending since 2018 and in the interregnum paddy was provided to the petitioner for the purposes of hulling.

3. List on 12.12.2024, as fresh."

3. Let the Opposite Party nos. 2, 4 and 8 file their separate counter affidavits within three weeks.

4. The opposite party no. 8 shall specifically indicate as to whether any charge sheet has been filed. If not, what is the reasons therefor, as the FIR is of 2018 and whether the proprietor of the petitioner-firm is involved in the alleged offence or not.

5. The District Food Marketting Officer has sent instructions in response to our order dated 28.11.2024 that he came to know about the criminal case only in October, 2024.

6. Let the Officer file an affidavit in this regard as it is the petitioner's case that it is the Department which has lodged the FIR. The Regional Food Controller, O.P. No. 3 shall also file his affidavit before the next date, so will be the O.P. No. 8 clearly indicating the stage of the investigation and whether the proprietor of the petitioner is involved in the offence or not.

7. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within one week thereafter.

8. List in the first week of January, 2025 as fresh."

9. In these circumstances, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- each upon opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4, which shall be payable by the next date. On the next date, we will see as to whether our queries made in the order dated 28.11.2024 and 12.12.2024 have been responded in the affidavits filed by the concerned opposite parties or not as prima facie, we do not find any such response. We are pained to observe that the opposite parties are taking these proceedings before a Constitutional Court in a rather casual manner, which is not acceptable.

10. Let the opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 appear before this Court on the next date and file their respective affidavits in light of the queries made in the aforesaid orders and also furnish an explanation as, prima facie, the opposite party No.8's statement does not appear to be acceptable in view of the orders dated

28.11.2024 and 5.3.2024 and opposite party No.2, 3 and 4 did not comply the order dated 28.11.2024 in letter and spirit.

11. List on 02.04.2025 as fresh. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 A.Nigam

3. Shri Vivek Manishi Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State has informed the Court that the letter for compliance of the order dated 28.11.2024 was sent to all the opposite parties including Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, who have been impleaded as opposite party on that very date.

4. On being confronted opposite party no. 8 Sri Rehman submitted that in compliance of the letter aforesaid in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2024 he had sent instructions but there was no mention therein about filing any counter affidavit.

5. We have noted in our order dated 5.3.2025 that we had asked opp. party Nos. 2 and 4 to file separate affidavits vide our order dated 28.11.2024, but they had filed a common affidavit.

6. Sri Nishant Shukla, Standing Counsel says that the opp. party No. 2 has filed his separate affidavit on 12.3.2025, however, the computer record discloses that four counter affidavits have been filed today by opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8. These affidavits have been summoned and are taken on record.

7. The separate affidavits filed by opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 have no explanation in the affidavits as to why separate affidavits were not filed earlier in compliance of our order dated

28.11.2024 which has led to unnecessary procrastination of the proceedings and harassment of the petitioner apart from wasting time of the Court. On 28.11.2024, we had specifically asked them to file separate affidavits. Considering the issues involved, we wanted to have separate version of the officers, which was not done, but a common affidavit was filed, which compelled us to pass an order dated 05.03.2025 in the following terms:- "Heard. Despite our order dated 12.12.2024, respondent No.8- S.P., Economic Offences Wing has not filed his affidavit, on account of which the matter cannot be heard today. We do not accept such apathy on the part of the respondent No.8. Let him file the required affidavit positively by 12.03.2025, failing which he shall appear before this Court on 17.03.2025, when the case shall come up as fresh. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to communicate our order to respondent No.8. Moreover, we have also found that respondent Nos.2 and 4 have not filed their separate affidavits, as was directed, but a common affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 to 7. Prima facie, this amounts to contempt of order dated 12.12.2024. Last opportunity is granted to file such affidavit by 12.03.2025, failing which respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall also appear before this Court on the next date fixed."

8. Prior to it, on 12.12.2024 we had passed the following order:- "1. Heard.

2.The order dated 28.11.2024 reads as under : "1. Petitioner should implead Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Lucknow as an opposite party during course of the day.

2. Let learned Standing Counsel seek instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing as also the Officer who has passed the impugned order as to the material available against the petitioner regarding his involvement in FIR No. 133/2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti and how the impugned recommendation Annexure 1 can be justified in the year 2024 when the FIR has remained pending since 2018 and in the interregnum paddy was provided to the petitioner for the purposes of hulling.

3. List on 12.12.2024, as fresh."

3. Let the Opposite Party nos. 2, 4 and 8 file their separate counter affidavits within three weeks.

4. The opposite party no. 8 shall specifically indicate as to whether any charge sheet has been filed. If not, what is the reasons therefor, as the FIR is of 2018 and whether the proprietor of the petitioner-firm is involved in the alleged offence or not.

5. The District Food Marketting Officer has sent instructions in response to our order dated 28.11.2024 that he came to know about the criminal case only in October, 2024.

6. Let the Officer file an affidavit in this regard as it is the petitioner's case that it is the Department which has lodged the FIR. The Regional Food Controller, O.P. No. 3 shall also file his affidavit before the next date, so will be the O.P. No. 8 clearly indicating the stage of the investigation and whether the proprietor of the petitioner is involved in the offence or not.

7. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within one week thereafter.

8. List in the first week of January, 2025 as fresh."

9. In these circumstances, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- each upon opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4, which shall be payable by the next date. On the next date, we will see as to whether our queries made in the order dated 28.11.2024 and 12.12.2024 have been responded in the affidavits filed by the concerned opposite parties or not as prima facie, we do not find any such response. We are pained to observe that the opposite parties are taking these proceedings before a Constitutional Court in a rather casual manner, which is not acceptable.

10. Let the opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 appear before this Court on the next date and file their respective affidavits in light of the queries made in the aforesaid orders and also furnish an explanation as, prima facie, the opposite party No.8's statement does not appear to be acceptable in view of the orders dated

28.11.2024 and 5.3.2024 and opposite party No.2, 3 and 4 did not comply the order dated 28.11.2024 in letter and spirit.

11. List on 02.04.2025 as fresh. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 A.Nigam