Allegations of misconduct by a public servant and influence on investigation require substantial evidence to prove, and failure to provide such evidence may result in the dismissal of the petition.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 and Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner No.2 in person. Also heard Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 & 8, Mr. Abhijit Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.9 and Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, respondent No.10 in person.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to place and produce all the record related with the petitioner’s and respondent No.10 for just and proper decision of the case.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondent No.5 or any likewise agency under the gracious supervision of this Hon’ble Court to submit the fair investigation report in the cases and record whatever which made and prepared against the petitioner’s by the respondent No.9 and the involvement and indulgence of the respondent No.9 and its extent for just and proper decision of the case.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to take appropriate actions against the respondent No.9 and bonafide action by registering appropriate offence for abusing the process of law and for starting an initiating malice prosecution against the petitioner’s looking to the high placed of posting of the respondent No.9 the strongest and hardest punishment may kindly be proposed against the respondent No.9, so that it will give a message to the society that any person cannot abuse the process of law and cannot disrespect the honor of the family or derail any member of the family or the girl by using their power and status.

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to initiate appropriate judicial enquiry over the actual damage caused by the respondent No.9 to the petitioner’s and the respondent No.10 also by examining every aspect of the issue particularly about the continuous meeting of the respondent No.10 & 9 and also the reason for false acquisition leveled against the petitioner’s which was duly forwarded for registration of FIR by the respondent No.10. Any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued by this Hon’ble Court for just and proper decision of the case and also to do the complete justice.

10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, namely, late Pankaj Shrivastava was a practicing renowned lawyer of the Chhattisgarh, who died by committing suicide by hanging in the intervening night of 07-08/03/2014 which was a result of abatement of the wife of Pankaj Shrivastava, namely, Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, herein respondent No.10. Even though Late Pankaj Shrivastava had performed love marriage with respondent No.10, the petitioner No.1 and his entire family accepted the said marriage which was solemnized on 20.04.2008. By that time, the petitioner No.1 had already been retired from the service.

4. During the life time, late Pankaj Shrivastava made three assets as a Joint Hindu Family property with the aid of mother-father, the wife of petitioner No.1 was also a government servant, who retired from the post of Teacher. One family property was g