High Court

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the first information report dated 07.11.2019 of the case in question was lodged on the complaint made by Hansraj, Deputy Director that applicant's firm including five other firms submitted registration of LED Vans. It is the case of the applicant that applicant's firm was empanelled with the Information and Public Relation Department, Government of U.P. A notice was issued inviting tender by the department for selection of firms for award work relating to 'Installation and Operating of LED Video Van on Rental Basis in the State of U.P.'. He further submits that there is no requirement in the tender notice for submitting the documents of ownership/lease of more than one LED Van therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to have filed forged/ fabricated documents claiming ownership of several Vans.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that after detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any material/evidence against the applicant even though he has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant. He further submits that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs/ State of Gujarat and Others : (2008) 5 SCC 668 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

4. It is further submitted that the F.I.R was lodged against six firms including the firm of the applicant and the partners/owners/proprietors of the two firms who are also named in the F.I.R dated 07.11.2019, against whom the same allegations have been levelled and the same material collected by the police during investigation have approached this court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11318 of 2024, Ajay Pratap Singh versus State of U.P and another in which an interim order has been granted on 12.12.2024. An another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 1196 of 2024, Amit Kumar Shukla and another versus State of U.P and another in which this Court has granted parity of the interim order granted in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh. Interim order dated 20.12.2024, passed in the case of Amit Kumar Shukla and another is quoted hereinbelow:- " 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application is filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.51857 of 2022, Case Crime No.0549/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case of co- accused, Ajay Pratap Singh, interim protection has been granted by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024, therefore, applicants are also entitled for the same.

4. Order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024 is as under:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the following prayer : "To quash the summoning order dated 28.05.2022, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as well as charge-sheet dated 09.09.2021 (contained herein as Annexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively of the application) filed by the Investigating Officer in Case No.51857 of 2022 (State Vs. Atul Kumar Shukla) arising out of case crime no.0549 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow."

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the first information report of the case in question was lodged on the complaint made by Hansraj that applicant's firm including five other firms submitted forged/tampered documents for registration of LED Vans. It is the case of the applicant that applicant's firm was empanelled with the Information and Public Relation Department, Government of U.P. A notice was issued inviting tender by the department for selection of firms for award work relating to 'Installation and Operating of LED Video Van on Rental Basis in the State of U.P.'. He further submits that there is no requirement in the tender notice for submitting the documents of ownership/lease of more than one LED Van therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to have filed forged/ fabricated documents claiming ownership of several Vans.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that after detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer did not found any material/evidence against the applicant even though he has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. He further submits that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs/ State of Gujarat and Others : (2008) 5 SCC 668 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant, but does not dispute the legal pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case relied upon by the applicant.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the first information report as well as other relevant documents and the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

8. List this case in February, 2025. By the next date, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 may file their respective counter affidavits.

9. Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Case No.51857 of 2022 (State Vs. Atul Kumar Shukla) arising out of Case Crime no.0549 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow, shall remain stayed.

5. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute this fact that interim relief has already been granted to the co- accused, having identical role.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application and order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024, matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to the private respondent.

8. List this case in the month of February, 2025 alongwith Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "

5. Learned A.G.A though opposed the application but unable to dispute the parity of the interim order granted in favour of other persons/accused having identical role or allegations.

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case and order 20.12.2024, passed in the case of Amit Kumar Shukla and another versus State of U.P and another, the applicant is entitled for the parity of the interim order granted by this Court earlier to the co-accused persons.

8. Issue notice to the private respondents.

9. Steps be taken within a week.

10. Connect and list this case alongwith Application under Section 482 No. 11318 of 2024 in the first week of July, 2025.

11. Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

12. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 DiVYa

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the first information report dated 07.11.2019 of the case in question was lodged on the complaint made by Hansraj, Deputy Director that applicant's firm including five other firms submitted registration of LED Vans. It is the case of the applicant that applicant's firm was empanelled with the Information and Public Relation Department, Government of U.P. A notice was issued inviting tender by the department for selection of firms for award work relating to 'Installation and Operating of LED Video Van on Rental Basis in the State of U.P.'. He further submits that there is no requirement in the tender notice for submitting the documents of ownership/lease of more than one LED Van therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to have filed forged/ fabricated documents claiming ownership of several Vans.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that after detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any material/evidence against the applicant even though he has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant. He further submits that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs/ State of Gujarat and Others : (2008) 5 SCC 668 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

4. It is further submitted that the F.I.R was lodged against six firms including the firm of the applicant and the partners/owners/proprietors of the two firms who are also named in the F.I.R dated 07.11.2019, against whom the same allegations have been levelled and the same material collected by the police during investigation have approached this court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11318 of 2024, Ajay Pratap Singh versus State of U.P and another in which an interim order has been granted on 12.12.2024. An another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 1196 of 2024, Amit Kumar Shukla and another versus State of U.P and another in which this Court has granted parity of the interim order granted in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh. Interim order dated 20.12.2024, passed in the case of Amit Kumar Shukla and another is quoted hereinbelow:- " 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application is filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.51857 of 2022, Case Crime No.0549/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case of co- accused, Ajay Pratap Singh, interim protection has been granted by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024, therefore, applicants are also entitled for the same.

4. Order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024 is as under:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the following prayer : "To quash the summoning order dated 28.05.2022, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as well as charge-sheet dated 09.09.2021 (contained herein as Annexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively of the application) filed by the Investigating Officer in Case No.51857 of 2022 (State Vs. Atul Kumar Shukla) arising out of case crime no.0549 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow."

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the first information report of the case in question was lodged on the complaint made by Hansraj that applicant's firm including five other firms submitted forged/tampered documents for registration of LED Vans. It is the case of the applicant that applicant's firm was empanelled with the Information and Public Relation Department, Government of U.P. A notice was issued inviting tender by the department for selection of firms for award work relating to 'Installation and Operating of LED Video Van on Rental Basis in the State of U.P.'. He further submits that there is no requirement in the tender notice for submitting the documents of ownership/lease of more than one LED Van therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to have filed forged/ fabricated documents claiming ownership of several Vans.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that after detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer did not found any material/evidence against the applicant even though he has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. He further submits that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs/ State of Gujarat and Others : (2008) 5 SCC 668 and requested for kind indulgence of this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant, but does not dispute the legal pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case relied upon by the applicant.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the first information report as well as other relevant documents and the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

8. List this case in February, 2025. By the next date, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 may file their respective counter affidavits.

9. Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Case No.51857 of 2022 (State Vs. Atul Kumar Shukla) arising out of Case Crime no.0549 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. police Station Hazratganj, district Lucknow, shall remain stayed.

5. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute this fact that interim relief has already been granted to the co- accused, having identical role.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application and order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024, matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to the private respondent.

8. List this case in the month of February, 2025 alongwith Application U/S 482 No.11318 of 2024.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "

5. Learned A.G.A though opposed the application but unable to dispute the parity of the interim order granted in favour of other persons/accused having identical role or allegations.

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case and order 20.12.2024, passed in the case of Amit Kumar Shukla and another versus State of U.P and another, the applicant is entitled for the parity of the interim order granted by this Court earlier to the co-accused persons.

8. Issue notice to the private respondents.

9. Steps be taken within a week.

10. Connect and list this case alongwith Application under Section 482 No. 11318 of 2024 in the first week of July, 2025.

11. Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

12. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 DiVYa