Allahabad High Court summons UPCS in Gorakhpur communal riot case

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday summoned the chief secretary of the state Rahul Bhatnagar on May 11, 2017 with the record of Gorakhpur communal riot case of 2007, where the then Member of Parliament Yogi Adityanath was one of the accused persons.

Hearing a writ petition filed by Parvez Parwaz and Asad Hayat, a division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and UC Srivastava directed the chief secretary to bring investigation report of Gorakhpur riot case of 2007 as well documents relating to grant of sanction under section 153A of IPC, which describes offence of inciting communal violence and riot.

As per law, the sanction to prosecute under Section 153A of IPC (inciting communal violence) is granted by the state government.

While fixing May 11, 2017 as the next hearing of the matter, the court directed the chief secretary to file his personal affidavit in the matter.

The petitioner Parvez Parwaz is the complainant in the FIR while other petitioner Asad Hayat is a witness in this case Gorakhpur riot case of 2007.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners have requested the court to direct investigation by an independent agency into an FIR registered in 2008 in Gorakhpur against the then MP Yogi Adityanath and three others in a case of alleged communal violence.

The FIR filed at Cantt police station had alleged that the then MP Yogi and the then mayor of Gorakhpur Anju Chaudhri, the then MLA Radha Mohan Agarwal and another person had incited communal violence and riot in Gorakhpur in 2007.

Stating that the matter is being investigated by CBCID, the petitioner expressed the apprehension in the petition that the state police may not be impartial in the matter. Therefore, the investigation of the case be transferred to an independent agency.

Earlier on May 24, 2017, the counsel for the petitioners S F A Naqvi had raised a point before the court that the sanction to prosecute under Section 153A of IPC (inciting communal violence) is granted by the state government, as has been stated by the investigating agency CB-CID in its affidavit before the court.

“Therefore, the sanction has to be granted by the state. But a peculiar situation has emerged that the person against whom the prosecution sanction has to be granted by the state government has become the head of the state,” Naqvi said while indicating to Yogi, who has taken oath as chief minister of UP on March 19, 2017.

Under this circumstance, would it be appropriate for the high court to refer the matter for sanction to the state government, he had stated.

Earlier, at one stage on February 3, 2017, the court had directed the state counsel to inform whether the sanction had been granted by the competent authority for prosecuting the accused persons in the case, as the petition had been preferred by one who is the informant in the case.

However, on the next date on March 10, 2017, the counsel for the petitioners stated before the court that he had received reply (counter affidavit) from the state government, wherein it was stated that the sanction to prosecute the accused persons from the competent authority is still awaited.

However, on April 28, 2017, the court had stated that from a perusal of the record, it appeared that the matter of sanction regarding prosecution of the accused persons is pending before the State Government and the question of grant of sanction for prosecution is to be decided by the head of the state government, who himself is a prime

accused in the present First Information Report (FIR) lodged by petitioners. “As the said question which has cropped up in the matter before this court requires proper adjudication, counsels for the parties are directed to assist the court in the matter on May 4, 2017, the next date fixed by placing legal proposition of law in the matter.

Hence, the court had directed to put up the matter for further argument on May 4, 2017.