Syaid Mohammad Shakib And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under section 420 of I.P.C.,sections 52 and 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, section 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and thereafter, the chargehseet has been filed on 25-03-2022, and the cognizance was taken after three years i.e. on 19-06-2025, whereas the fact remains that the Superintendent of Police directed for further investigation in the matter and the Investigating Officer vide Parcha dated 04-09-2024, has struck off the section 420 of I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. He added that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under section 420 of I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, is erroneous in the pretext that the trial court cannot take cognizance for offences, for which the chargesheet is not filed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation(State), reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 741 and has referred paragraph no. 15 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :- "15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must b be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case:" He further argued that it has been held by the coordinate Division 3 A482 No. 7155 of 2025 Bench of this court at Allahabad vide order dated 08-10-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7787 of 2021, Vinay Kumar And Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others, that the State Government will frame a time schedule for completing the exercise for withdrawal of Covid-2019 protocol breach cases in terms of the decision taken by the Government/guidelines of Central Government and will withdraw cases found worth withdrawal in accordance with law and in compliance thereof, the State Government issued a government order dated 26-10-2021, which is appended as annexure no. 3 to the application, wherein the detailed guidelines have been issued for withdrawal of the cases of Covid-2019, period. He submits that the prosecution is going on against the applicants, is against the guidelines dated 26-10- 2021,issued by the State Government and that too, is also in contrary to the order dated 08-10-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7787 of 2021. Concluding his arguments, he submits the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are nothing but, sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, submission is that the same may be quashed. On the other, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that he will seek detailed instructions in this matter. List/put up this matter on 10-09-2025, as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings arising out of case No. 26662/2021, under section 420 of IPC, sections 52 and 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Barabanki, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned. August 29, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under section 420 of I.P.C.,sections 52 and 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, section 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and thereafter, the chargehseet has been filed on 25-03-2022, and the cognizance was taken after three years i.e. on 19-06-2025, whereas the fact remains that the Superintendent of Police directed for further investigation in the matter and the Investigating Officer vide Parcha dated 04-09-2024, has struck off the section 420 of I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. He added that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under section 420 of I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, is erroneous in the pretext that the trial court cannot take cognizance for offences, for which the chargesheet is not filed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation(State), reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 741 and has referred paragraph no. 15 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :- "15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must b be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case:" He further argued that it has been held by the coordinate Division 3 A482 No. 7155 of 2025 Bench of this court at Allahabad vide order dated 08-10-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7787 of 2021, Vinay Kumar And Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others, that the State Government will frame a time schedule for completing the exercise for withdrawal of Covid-2019 protocol breach cases in terms of the decision taken by the Government/guidelines of Central Government and will withdraw cases found worth withdrawal in accordance with law and in compliance thereof, the State Government issued a government order dated 26-10-2021, which is appended as annexure no. 3 to the application, wherein the detailed guidelines have been issued for withdrawal of the cases of Covid-2019, period. He submits that the prosecution is going on against the applicants, is against the guidelines dated 26-10- 2021,issued by the State Government and that too, is also in contrary to the order dated 08-10-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7787 of 2021. Concluding his arguments, he submits the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are nothing but, sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, submission is that the same may be quashed. On the other, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that he will seek detailed instructions in this matter. List/put up this matter on 10-09-2025, as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings arising out of case No. 26662/2021, under section 420 of IPC, sections 52 and 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Barabanki, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned. August 29, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)