IPS officer moves court as no FIR filed against Mulayam

Suspended IPS officer Amitabh Thakur today moved court contending non-compliance of its order to register FIR against Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for allegedly issuing threats to him on July 10.

Thakur prayed for action against Hazratganj Inspector Vijaymal Yadav for allegedly refusing to comply with the court order so far, his social activist wife Nutan Thakur said.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Reeta Singh directed the Inspector to present his report about registration of FIR by October 1, according to Nutan.

Thakur said it was "truly shameful" that FIR of Disproportionate Assets was registered against him after a "hurried enquiry" without providing him an opportunity to be heard, while another FIR was not being registered despite specific court orders.

On September 16, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had ordered filing of FIR against the SP supremo for allegedly threatening the IPS officer.

CJM Som Prabha had accepted Thakur's application under 156(3) IPC and directed SHO Hazratganj to file an FIR under relevant sections and probe the matter and also apprise the court.

Section 156(3) IPC empowers a magistrate to direct police to file FIR.

The court observed that after going through facts provided by Thakur, it appeared to be a case under 506 IPC (punishment for criminal intimidation).

Meanwhile, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) today sought response from the Central and state government on the petition filed by Thakur challenging the charge that filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) amounted to misconduct.

Thakur said a bench of Navneet Kumar and Jayati Chandra passed the order after hearing him and the counsel for Central and state government.

The petition said UP government suspended Thakur on July 13, 2015, presenting a 16-point chargesheet, where the first charge was filing PILs though the Supreme Court has made it clear in case of UP-cadre IAS officer Vijay Shanker Pandey that filing PILs by citizens, including government servants, is a constitutional right.

The petitioner said after the state government's refusal to entertain his pleas, he was challenging the charge as being prima-facie illegal and being contempt of the Supreme Court.