The Allahabad High Court has ordered to make the CBI Director a party in the pending petition in the case of extortion of money by blackmailing in a false case.
A Single Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing an application filed by Nikki Devi.
The intervener application dated 28.01.2023 has been filed by Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate for impleading Mujib Ahmad @ Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui as well as Mushir Ahmad Siddiqui, in which one is practising Advocate of the Court wherein it has been stated that they have been victimised of false accusation by one Roshan Jahan Siddiqui, who is also a practising Advocate.
He further submitted that the applicant no 1 had given Rs 10,000/- in cash and through UPI transferred Rs 15,000/- in her bank account, during the lockdown and when the said money was demanded, he was threatened for dire consequences as well as implication in a false criminal case.
Thereafter, applicant no1 lodged a F.I.R against said Roshan Jahan Siddiqui in Case under Section 406, 506 I.P.C Police Station Cantt District Prayagraj.
As a counter blast to the same, said Roshan Jahan Siddiqui after a lapse of three months and five days, lodged a F.I.R against the proposed impleaders in Case under Sections 354Ka, 354Gha, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Cantt District Prayagraj.
Counsel further submitted the informant of Case used to trap the innocent persons including Advocates to extract money, thereafter lodges false criminal cases, one of the F.I.R lodged by her is Case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 386, 354 Ka, 309 IPC at Police Station Cantt District Prayagraj.
It is thus contended that the applicants may be impeached as necessary by the opposite party in the array of instant 482 Cr.P.C application and preliminary enquiry may be directed to be conducted by the C.B.I in the case registered against the applicants.
Counsel for the applicants had filed supplementary affidavit dated 06.10.2023, wherein it has been stated that the said Roshan Jahan Siddiqui is a gang leader and has connections in various States, such as Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.
A complaint was filed by the applicant no 2 Mushir Ahmad before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh U.P at Allahabad being its Disciplinary Committee Complaint Case (Mushir Ahmad Siddiqui Vs Roshan Jahan Siddiqui) in which, after considering the evidence adduced by the applicant no 2, the Disciplinary Committee found the allegations true therefore, vide order dated 05.08.2023 the Disciplinary Committee Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh U.P at Prayagraj has cancelled her Advocate Practice Licence for a period of ten years and also debarred her from practising in the country for a period of ten years.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case especially the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the Court is of the opinion that conduct, atrocities and act of informant of Case, in which the preliminary enquiry by the C.B.I has been sought to be conducted, has already been brought to fore by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh thus no order is required to be passed in the intervener application.
The applicants may seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in the pending case against them before the trial Court after adducing the entire facts and documents and it is expected that the trial Court may consider the conduct, atrocities and act of the complainant as well as the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh U.P at Allahabad before proceeding against the applicants/proposed interveners”, the Court observed while disposing the application.
“Supplementary affidavit dated 25.09.2023 filed by R.P.L Srivastava and Subash Chandra Srivastava Advocates in intervention application discloses the fact, though the preliminary enquiry had already been directed to be conducted with regard to Case under Sections 354Kh, 147,. 323, 3087, 427, 452, 504, 506 I.P Police Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar, however preliminary enquiry may be directed to be conducted by the C.B.I, afresh.
Since the intervention application had been disposed of with a direction to conduct preliminary enquiry pursuant to which, preliminary enquiry had already been concluded, thus no further order is required to be passed.
Counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director as necessary opposite party no 3 in the array of parties without a week”, the order reads.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on January 30, 2024.