The Allahabad High Court has imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on one Parvez Parwaz and another for filing repeated petitions against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath regarding 2007 Gorakhpur riot case, even after the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court.
On January 27, 2007, a Hindu youth was killed in a clash between two groups during a Muharram procession in Gorakhpur.
Parwaz, a local journalist, filed a case on September 26, 2008, alleging that Adityanath, the then local BJP MP, had delivered speeches seeking revenge for the death of the youth and he had videos of the incident.
Subsequently, the BJP-led state government declined to grant sanction for prosecution on May 3, 2017.
The applicant challenged the state government’s decision before the high court, which dismissed his petition on February 22, 2018.
Later, he challenged the decision of the high court before the Supreme Court, which, too, dismissed it.
The applicants had challenged the decision of the trial court on October 11, 2022, wherein the court had rejected the protest petition against the final/closure report of police in the case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, has now dismissed the petition of Parwaz and another under section 482 (inherent powers of high court) of Criminal Procedure Code, imposed the cost which has to be deposited in the Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties within four weeks, failing which the same will be recovered as arrears of land revenue from estates/assets of the petitioner.
“The petitioner appears to be a busybody 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 counsel to contest this case before the trial court, this court and the Supreme Court. His resources to fight the litigation should be a matter of investigation. There may be some force in the submission raised by Manish Goyal, the Additional Advocate General, that the petitioner is an impostor who has been set up by forces opposing Yogi Adityanath, the present Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and the forces which do not want progress of Uttar Pradesh and India,” the high court observed while taking a serious note of the repeated litigations filed by the applicants before different courts.
“It is for the state to investigate the said aspect, however, this court does not want to say anything further or give any direction in this regard,” the high court added.
Appearing for the applicants, senior advocate S.F. A. Naqvi argued that “the question of the 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. While deciding the protest petition filed by the petitioner against the closure/final report, the trial court could/ought to have decided the issue of the legality of the order, refusing prosecution sanction”.
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. Once the Supreme Court has not entertained the plea of validity of the order, refusing prosecution sanction, the trial court has rightly refused to go into the said issue”.
