State v. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The present application is instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS with the following main reliefs: "i. To set aside the non speaking cognizance order and summoning order dated 11-09-2012 passed by A.C.J.M. Ist Lucknow in connection of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010 under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant. ii. To set aside the N.B.W passed by the court of A.C.J.M.Ist Lucknow against I the applicant in connection of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj. iii. To quash the charge sheet no.170/2011, dated 24-09-2011 filed by the police of police station Husainganj, Lucknow in connection of case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468, 471 IPC against the applicant, in respect of applicant only. iv. To quash entire proceeding of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is ditto identical to the case of Smt. Anjani Srivastava, who has approached this Court while instituting an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1036 of 2025, wherein she has been granted interim protection vide order dated 13th of February, 2025. The order dated 13th of February, 2025 is quoted hereunder: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief (s):- "(i) to set aside the non-speaking cognizance order & summoning dated 11.09.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st, Lucknow in the connection of Criminal Case No.4294/2012 (State ...Vs.....Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no.110/2010, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., of Police Station Hussainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant. the connection of (ii) to set aside the N.B.W. order dated 30.11.2024 & 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of A.C.J.M Ist, Lucknow, against the applicant Criminal (State.......Vs...Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C, of Police station Hussainganj, Lucknow. Case No. iii. to quash the charge-sheet No. 170/2011, dated 24.09.2011 filed by the police of police station- Hussainganj, Lucknow, in the connection of Case Crime No. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C against the applicant, in respect of applicant only. iv. to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4294/2012 (State ....Vs...Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C, of Police station Hussainganj, Lucknow, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-Ist, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant." The applicant who is allegedly 61 years of age has approached this Court for the main relief sought which is to the effect that the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No.110/2010, under sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., at Police station Hussainganj, District Lucknow be quashed in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS and for interim protection it has been indicated that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that informant/opposite party No.2 was summoned by the Vigilance Officer of the Railways at New Delhi on 12.01.2009, 16.03.2009 and on 17.04.2009 in relation to an inquiry related to reservation on Duty Pass issued by the Railways to the informant and thereafter the O.P. No.2 lodged the F.I.R. against unknown persons which was registered on 03.05.2010, as Case Crime No.0097/2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow making allegations therein to the effect that some one has traveled after getting reservation on the Duty Pass belonging to the opposite party No.2, though the said Duty Pass was available on that day with him and these facts would indicate that to save his skin in the Vigilance inquiry the F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 against unknown persons, which is the basis of the pending proceedings. In continuation, it is stated that the Investigating Officer ought to have taken note of the entries made in original Duty Pass and that Duty Pass should have been made part of the police report submitted in terms of Section 173 (3) Cr.P.C. However, neither the facts pertaining to entries made in the Duty Pass were taken note of by the Investigating Officer, nor the said pass has been made part of the record. On the requirement on aforesaid, it is stated that for getting the reservation on Duty Pass the pass shall be placed before the concerned clerk, who would make the entry therein, and for the purpose of getting T.A. the authority concerned is also under obligation to verify the said entries. It is also stated that after lodging of the F.I.R., the statement of the informant/opposite party No.2, was recorded by the Investigating Officer, who clarified the facts indicated in the F.I.R. by saying that on 12.05.2008, 13.05.2008, 02.08.2008 and 03.08.2008, the dates in the F.I.R., he travelled on the said tickets issued on the basis of Duty Pass. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that matter requires consideration. Accordingly, issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within seven working days. List this case along with service report. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue shall remain stayed qua the applicant." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to the same relief. The Counsel appearing for the State does not object aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter alongwith service report and connect with Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1036 of 2025. Till then, the criminal proceedings of chargesheet No. 170 of 2011, dated 24.09.2011, Criminal Case No. 4294 of 2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow, summoning order dated 11.09.2012 passed by ACJM-Ist, Lucknow and NBW issued against the applicant as well as entire proceedings in the aforesaid case, shall remain stayed, so far as the applicant is concerned. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 kkv/

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The present application is instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS with the following main reliefs: "i. To set aside the non speaking cognizance order and summoning order dated 11-09-2012 passed by A.C.J.M. Ist Lucknow in connection of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010 under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant. ii. To set aside the N.B.W passed by the court of A.C.J.M.Ist Lucknow against I the applicant in connection of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj. iii. To quash the charge sheet no.170/2011, dated 24-09-2011 filed by the police of police station Husainganj, Lucknow in connection of case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468, 471 IPC against the applicant, in respect of applicant only. iv. To quash entire proceeding of criminal case No 4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others) having case crime no.110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 IPC of police station Husainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is ditto identical to the case of Smt. Anjani Srivastava, who has approached this Court while instituting an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1036 of 2025, wherein she has been granted interim protection vide order dated 13th of February, 2025. The order dated 13th of February, 2025 is quoted hereunder: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief (s):- "(i) to set aside the non-speaking cognizance order & summoning dated 11.09.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st, Lucknow in the connection of Criminal Case No.4294/2012 (State ...Vs.....Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no.110/2010, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., of Police Station Hussainganj, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant. the connection of (ii) to set aside the N.B.W. order dated 30.11.2024 & 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of A.C.J.M Ist, Lucknow, against the applicant Criminal (State.......Vs...Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C, of Police station Hussainganj, Lucknow. Case No. iii. to quash the charge-sheet No. 170/2011, dated 24.09.2011 filed by the police of police station- Hussainganj, Lucknow, in the connection of Case Crime No. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C against the applicant, in respect of applicant only. iv. to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4294/2012 (State ....Vs...Satnam Singh & others), having case crime no. 110/2010, under section 420,467,468,471 I.P.C, of Police station Hussainganj, Lucknow, pending in the court of A.C.J.M-Ist, Lucknow, only in respect of present applicant." The applicant who is allegedly 61 years of age has approached this Court for the main relief sought which is to the effect that the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.4294/2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No.110/2010, under sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., at Police station Hussainganj, District Lucknow be quashed in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS and for interim protection it has been indicated that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that informant/opposite party No.2 was summoned by the Vigilance Officer of the Railways at New Delhi on 12.01.2009, 16.03.2009 and on 17.04.2009 in relation to an inquiry related to reservation on Duty Pass issued by the Railways to the informant and thereafter the O.P. No.2 lodged the F.I.R. against unknown persons which was registered on 03.05.2010, as Case Crime No.0097/2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow making allegations therein to the effect that some one has traveled after getting reservation on the Duty Pass belonging to the opposite party No.2, though the said Duty Pass was available on that day with him and these facts would indicate that to save his skin in the Vigilance inquiry the F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 against unknown persons, which is the basis of the pending proceedings. In continuation, it is stated that the Investigating Officer ought to have taken note of the entries made in original Duty Pass and that Duty Pass should have been made part of the police report submitted in terms of Section 173 (3) Cr.P.C. However, neither the facts pertaining to entries made in the Duty Pass were taken note of by the Investigating Officer, nor the said pass has been made part of the record. On the requirement on aforesaid, it is stated that for getting the reservation on Duty Pass the pass shall be placed before the concerned clerk, who would make the entry therein, and for the purpose of getting T.A. the authority concerned is also under obligation to verify the said entries. It is also stated that after lodging of the F.I.R., the statement of the informant/opposite party No.2, was recorded by the Investigating Officer, who clarified the facts indicated in the F.I.R. by saying that on 12.05.2008, 13.05.2008, 02.08.2008 and 03.08.2008, the dates in the F.I.R., he travelled on the said tickets issued on the basis of Duty Pass. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that matter requires consideration. Accordingly, issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within seven working days. List this case along with service report. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue shall remain stayed qua the applicant." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to the same relief. The Counsel appearing for the State does not object aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter alongwith service report and connect with Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1036 of 2025. Till then, the criminal proceedings of chargesheet No. 170 of 2011, dated 24.09.2011, Criminal Case No. 4294 of 2012 (State Vs. Satnam Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow, summoning order dated 11.09.2012 passed by ACJM-Ist, Lucknow and NBW issued against the applicant as well as entire proceedings in the aforesaid case, shall remain stayed, so far as the applicant is concerned. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 kkv/