ORDER :

1. List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this case.

2. Mr. Anuradha Sundram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present.

3. At very outset, learned Standing Counsel states that this is complainant's petition and the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file such petition, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (10) ADJ 1 (FB), and the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2013 (1) ADJ 228.

4. In view of the above, the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file the petition.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

6. Before parting with the order, this Court feels it necessary to deal with practice of affidavits filing in such petitions that today, two petitions, i.e. Writ-C Nos.26718 of 2023 : Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. and 26639 of 2023 : Jaidev vs. Sate of U.P. and 2 Ors. are listed. Affidavits in both of the cases are sworn by one Kamas Singh, who in o