JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Syed Azizul Hasan Rizvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“i. To issue an order or direction to the Opposite Party No. 2 to take cognizance and summon the accused Opposite Party No. 12 under section 376 and 392 I.P.C. considering the material, evidence, statements of witnesses esp. the statements of the petitioner recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. available on the record submitted by the police and considering the findings of the opposite party no. 2 itself in para no. 2 of its own summoning order dated 21.03.2023 contained at Annexure No. 3 in the interest of justice.

ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Opposite Party No. 3 to take stern and effective legal actions against the Opposite Party No. 4 to 11 for openly and flagrantly violating the specific provisions of law contained under section 173 (1) (1A) Cr.P.C and the Circulars Nos. 35/2018 dated 05.07.2018 and 18/2022 dated 06.07.2022 issued by the office of the Opposite Party No. 3 itself in the interest of justice.

iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem just, fair and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case, may, also, be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow has been impleaded as the opposite party no. 2.

4. In Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of Courts being impleaded as opposite parties. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced below: -

“14. Before parting with this case it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gorakhpur arc shown as respondents and in the Special Leave Petition they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for Impleading them as parties in the Special Leave Petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the concerned judicial officers. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Special Leave Petitions under Article 138 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly depricating such a practice.”

5. In Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again discussed the precedents on this point and explained the same in the following words: -

“43. As we notice, the decisions rendered in Hari Vishnu Kamath [AIR 1955 SC 233 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104], Udit Narain Singh [AIR 1963 SC 786] and Savitri Devi [Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577] have to be properly understood. In Hari Vishnu Kamath [AIR 1955 SC 233 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104], the larger Bench was dealing with a case that arose from Election Tribunal which had ceased to exist and expressed the view how it is a proper party. In Udit Narain Singh [AIR 1963 SC 786], the Court was really dwelling upon the controversy with regard to the impleadment of parties in whose favour orders had been passed and in that context observed that tribunal is a necessary party. In Savitri Devi [Savitr