Dheeraj Mishra And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko . And Another

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No.83 of 2016, in Criminal Case No.1697 of 2017 (State vs. Gulhasan @ Gullu and others) ; as well as charge sheet dated 30.09.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh ; summoning order dated 13.10.2017 and also bailable warrant dated 28.10.2025 issued against the applicant by Additional Civil Judge, Court No.24, Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR of the case in question was lodged by Jainuddin against eight known and two unknown persons, co-villagers of the applicants and thereafter investigation was conducted. At the initial stage, investigation was assigned to Sub-Inspector Nanhey Lal. He prepared a charge sheet dated 19.07.2016 against six persons namely Gulhasan @ Gullu Son of Idris, Mohd. Raees @ Vakil Son of Mohd. Ibrahim, Mohd. Sayeed, Son of Mohd. Ibrahim, Abid Ali, Son of Amin, Sajid Khan Son of Abid Ali, all residents of Pipri Khalsa and Ishtikhar Ahmad, Son of Liyakat Ali, Resident of Khampur, Police Station Kandhai, Pratapgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC with the observation that investigation is going on against named accused Parvej Ahmad, Son of Babbu, Resident of Dasiyapur, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Pratapgarh and Javed Ahmad, Son of Mobin, resident of Tala, P.S. kandhai, Pratapgarh and two unknown persons.

4. Thereafter, the investigation of the case in question was assigned to Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, S.I. PNO No.872700145. As he was annoyed with the applicants therefore, in place of conducting investigation against the named accused persons, he forcibly took affidavit from the informant that two unknown persons were the applicants, who are the co-villagers but due to haste, their names could not be mentioned in the FIR. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 30.09.2017 was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants. 2 A482 No. 9684 of 2025

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant of the present case had also given affidavit that he was forced to signed the affidavit by Sub-Inspector Ranjit Kumar Pandey (Supra) but the applicants have no concern with the crime in question. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation was going on and charge sheet dated 06.09.2018 was submitted by Shri Radhey Shyam Singh, Sub-Inspector, PNO No. 930450151 with the observation that investigation is still pending against Sajid Ali, Parvej Ahmad and Isthkhar. He further submitted that this cannot be a police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C..

6. The Sub-Inspector, Shri Rajjan Rao, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh is also present in court and informed that investigation of the case in question was also assigned in the year 2023 and he submitted charge sheet in September, 2023 against Parvej Ahmad, named accused. He also informed that investigation of the case in question has already been concluded. He also stated that charge sheet against the applicants were already filed by earlier Investigating Officer namely Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey (supra).

7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the basis of instructions stated that applicants are the co-villagers and they were not present in the incident but charge sheet against them was filed by Sub-Inspector Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, on the basis of one affidavit and he does not want to prosecute them.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants also informed that aforesaid Sub Inspector, Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, had also implicated the applicants in another case in which Madhuri Devi was the informant and FIR was lodged against five named persons namely Vakil Ahmad, Tajjuwali, Khurshid, Mohd. Anis and Jia-ul-Haq but forcibly he took affidavit from Madhuri Devi and thus, charge sheet was also filed against the applicants.

9. Learned AGA requested for some time to seek instructions.

10. List this case on 18.12.2025.

11. The Inspector General (Establishment), U.P. Lucknow is directed to ensure the presence of Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey (supra) on the next date before this Court to explain that under what circumstances, the charge sheet was filed against the applicants on the basis of affidavit, as they were not named in the FIR, as they were co-villagers of the informant.

12. Until further orders of this Court, no coercive steps be taken against the applicants.

13. The Officer, who is present today, need not to appear again unless called for.

14. The Registry is directed to show the name of Shri Sachin Upadhyaya, as counsel for complainant, whenever the case is listed next.

15. In the meantime, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, is also directed to file an affidavit as to under what circumstances, the investigation of the case in question was concluded in the year 2023 whereas FIR of the case in question was lodged in the year 2016."

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, counter affidavit filed by 3 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 learned A.G.A. duly sworn by Mr. Deepak Bhukar, Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is taken on record. Written instructions duly signed by Mr. R.K. Pandey, Investigating Officer, P.S. Bindaki, District Fatehpur placed by the learned A.G.A. is also taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey, Sub-Inspector, PNO 872700145, through I.G. (Establishment), Police Headquarter, Lucknow as respondent no. 3 in the array of the parties, forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent no. 3 was annoyed with the applicants, who are innocent persons, as a result of which, applicants were falsely implicated in two cases, i.e., in the present case as well as in Case Crime No. 185 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 341, 325, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 83 of 2016 was lodged on

20.03.2016, the investigation of which, was conducted initially by Mr. Nanhe Lal Yadav-Sub Inspector and thereafter by Mr. Ram Yash Pandey. Later on, the investigation was assigned to Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey on 24.06.2017 and it was finally concluded on 11.10.2023. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that since the Investigating Officer-respondent no. 3 was annoyed with the applicants, one affidavit was taken by the him from the informant of the present case/respondent no. 2 that the applicants, who are the co-villagers, were also involved in the crime, on the basis of which, charge sheet was filed by respondent no. 3 against the applicants. It is vehemently submitted that it is highly improbable that the informant had not mentioned the names of the applicants in the F.I.R., who are her co-villagers and by way of affidavit, the applicants were implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that it is well settled that once the accused is known to the 4 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 informant and he/she is not named in the F.I.R., it creates a doubt on the prosecution story. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2025, respondent no. 3-Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey is also present before this Court. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey concedes the fact that informant as well as the applicants are the co-villagers and were known to each other. However, he failed to give satisfactory reply that why he never asked any question from the informant of the present case, after giving his affidavit in the form of Mazeed statement, that why the involvement of the applicants was not shown in the F.I.R., though they are co-villagers.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants, but does not dispute the fact that in the F.I.R., eight persons were named in the F.I.R., i.e., Gulhasan @ Gullu, Mohd. Raees @ Vakeel, Mohd. Saeed, Abid Ali, Sajid Ali, Javed Ahmad, Parvej Ahmad and Istakhar Ahmad and the allegation is also made only against them, but during the course of investigation, involvement of applicants was found, on the basis of, which, charge sheet was submitted against them.

7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well as going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., charge sheet as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, in which, eight persons have been named along with two unknown persons. It is further apparent that though the applicants are the co-villagers, their names were not mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R. and their involvement has been shown by the Investigating Officer-respondent no. 3 on the basis of the affidavit given by the informant-respondent no. 2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Mandavi Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2731, observed that once the accused is known to the informant, but his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the same has been lodged against unknown persons, then 5 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 such important facts, affecting the probability of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

8. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

9. Issue notice to respondent no. 2. As respondent no. 3-Mr. Rajit Kumar Pandey, Sub-Inspector is present before this Court, notice need not be issued in relation to him.

10. List this case on 17.02.2026.

11. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 3.

12. Until further orders of this Court, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed in relation to the applicants only. December 18, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No.83 of 2016, in Criminal Case No.1697 of 2017 (State vs. Gulhasan @ Gullu and others) ; as well as charge sheet dated 30.09.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh ; summoning order dated 13.10.2017 and also bailable warrant dated 28.10.2025 issued against the applicant by Additional Civil Judge, Court No.24, Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR of the case in question was lodged by Jainuddin against eight known and two unknown persons, co-villagers of the applicants and thereafter investigation was conducted. At the initial stage, investigation was assigned to Sub-Inspector Nanhey Lal. He prepared a charge sheet dated 19.07.2016 against six persons namely Gulhasan @ Gullu Son of Idris, Mohd. Raees @ Vakil Son of Mohd. Ibrahim, Mohd. Sayeed, Son of Mohd. Ibrahim, Abid Ali, Son of Amin, Sajid Khan Son of Abid Ali, all residents of Pipri Khalsa and Ishtikhar Ahmad, Son of Liyakat Ali, Resident of Khampur, Police Station Kandhai, Pratapgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC with the observation that investigation is going on against named accused Parvej Ahmad, Son of Babbu, Resident of Dasiyapur, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Pratapgarh and Javed Ahmad, Son of Mobin, resident of Tala, P.S. kandhai, Pratapgarh and two unknown persons.

4. Thereafter, the investigation of the case in question was assigned to Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, S.I. PNO No.872700145. As he was annoyed with the applicants therefore, in place of conducting investigation against the named accused persons, he forcibly took affidavit from the informant that two unknown persons were the applicants, who are the co-villagers but due to haste, their names could not be mentioned in the FIR. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 30.09.2017 was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants. 2 A482 No. 9684 of 2025

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant of the present case had also given affidavit that he was forced to signed the affidavit by Sub-Inspector Ranjit Kumar Pandey (Supra) but the applicants have no concern with the crime in question. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation was going on and charge sheet dated 06.09.2018 was submitted by Shri Radhey Shyam Singh, Sub-Inspector, PNO No. 930450151 with the observation that investigation is still pending against Sajid Ali, Parvej Ahmad and Isthkhar. He further submitted that this cannot be a police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C..

6. The Sub-Inspector, Shri Rajjan Rao, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh is also present in court and informed that investigation of the case in question was also assigned in the year 2023 and he submitted charge sheet in September, 2023 against Parvej Ahmad, named accused. He also informed that investigation of the case in question has already been concluded. He also stated that charge sheet against the applicants were already filed by earlier Investigating Officer namely Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey (supra).

7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the basis of instructions stated that applicants are the co-villagers and they were not present in the incident but charge sheet against them was filed by Sub-Inspector Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, on the basis of one affidavit and he does not want to prosecute them.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants also informed that aforesaid Sub Inspector, Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, had also implicated the applicants in another case in which Madhuri Devi was the informant and FIR was lodged against five named persons namely Vakil Ahmad, Tajjuwali, Khurshid, Mohd. Anis and Jia-ul-Haq but forcibly he took affidavit from Madhuri Devi and thus, charge sheet was also filed against the applicants.

9. Learned AGA requested for some time to seek instructions.

10. List this case on 18.12.2025.

11. The Inspector General (Establishment), U.P. Lucknow is directed to ensure the presence of Shri Ranjit Kumar Pandey (supra) on the next date before this Court to explain that under what circumstances, the charge sheet was filed against the applicants on the basis of affidavit, as they were not named in the FIR, as they were co-villagers of the informant.

12. Until further orders of this Court, no coercive steps be taken against the applicants.

13. The Officer, who is present today, need not to appear again unless called for.

14. The Registry is directed to show the name of Shri Sachin Upadhyaya, as counsel for complainant, whenever the case is listed next.

15. In the meantime, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, is also directed to file an affidavit as to under what circumstances, the investigation of the case in question was concluded in the year 2023 whereas FIR of the case in question was lodged in the year 2016."

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, counter affidavit filed by 3 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 learned A.G.A. duly sworn by Mr. Deepak Bhukar, Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is taken on record. Written instructions duly signed by Mr. R.K. Pandey, Investigating Officer, P.S. Bindaki, District Fatehpur placed by the learned A.G.A. is also taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey, Sub-Inspector, PNO 872700145, through I.G. (Establishment), Police Headquarter, Lucknow as respondent no. 3 in the array of the parties, forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent no. 3 was annoyed with the applicants, who are innocent persons, as a result of which, applicants were falsely implicated in two cases, i.e., in the present case as well as in Case Crime No. 185 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 341, 325, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 83 of 2016 was lodged on

20.03.2016, the investigation of which, was conducted initially by Mr. Nanhe Lal Yadav-Sub Inspector and thereafter by Mr. Ram Yash Pandey. Later on, the investigation was assigned to Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey on 24.06.2017 and it was finally concluded on 11.10.2023. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that since the Investigating Officer-respondent no. 3 was annoyed with the applicants, one affidavit was taken by the him from the informant of the present case/respondent no. 2 that the applicants, who are the co-villagers, were also involved in the crime, on the basis of which, charge sheet was filed by respondent no. 3 against the applicants. It is vehemently submitted that it is highly improbable that the informant had not mentioned the names of the applicants in the F.I.R., who are her co-villagers and by way of affidavit, the applicants were implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that it is well settled that once the accused is known to the 4 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 informant and he/she is not named in the F.I.R., it creates a doubt on the prosecution story. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2025, respondent no. 3-Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey is also present before this Court. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey concedes the fact that informant as well as the applicants are the co-villagers and were known to each other. However, he failed to give satisfactory reply that why he never asked any question from the informant of the present case, after giving his affidavit in the form of Mazeed statement, that why the involvement of the applicants was not shown in the F.I.R., though they are co-villagers.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants, but does not dispute the fact that in the F.I.R., eight persons were named in the F.I.R., i.e., Gulhasan @ Gullu, Mohd. Raees @ Vakeel, Mohd. Saeed, Abid Ali, Sajid Ali, Javed Ahmad, Parvej Ahmad and Istakhar Ahmad and the allegation is also made only against them, but during the course of investigation, involvement of applicants was found, on the basis of, which, charge sheet was submitted against them.

7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well as going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., charge sheet as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, in which, eight persons have been named along with two unknown persons. It is further apparent that though the applicants are the co-villagers, their names were not mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R. and their involvement has been shown by the Investigating Officer-respondent no. 3 on the basis of the affidavit given by the informant-respondent no. 2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Mandavi Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2731, observed that once the accused is known to the informant, but his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the same has been lodged against unknown persons, then 5 A482 No. 9684 of 2025 such important facts, affecting the probability of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

8. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

9. Issue notice to respondent no. 2. As respondent no. 3-Mr. Rajit Kumar Pandey, Sub-Inspector is present before this Court, notice need not be issued in relation to him.

10. List this case on 17.02.2026.

11. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 3.

12. Until further orders of this Court, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed in relation to the applicants only. December 18, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)