Allahabad High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Mr. Brijesh Kumar Rai, Inspector, PNO 052462216, mobile no. 8299687505 through I.G. (Establishment), Police Headquarter, Lucknow.

3. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.04.2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 117482 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 005 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel the applicant submits that private respondent, who was posted as S.H.O., P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow, on the basis of incorrect fact, challaned the applicant in Case Crime No. 88 of 2013, under Sections 307, 323, 353, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow. Another F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 89 of 2013, under Section 27/30 of Arms Act, P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow was also lodged against the applicant on the same date, i.e., on 17.08.2013 with the allegation that applicant opened fire on police party. It is further submitted that prior to the aforesaid cases, applicant, who is a 2 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 practicing lawyer, was not having any criminal antecedent. Later on, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the trial was proceeded by framing of charges against the applicant, whereafter, summon was issued by Additional Sessions Judge/District Judge, Court No. 6, Lucknow in S.T. No. 492 of

2015. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the private respondent is informant of the aforesaid case, but he was continuously avoiding the proceeding, due to which, notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. was issued, on which, he appeared before the trial court on 04.01.2024. However, in place of giving statement, by misusing his position, respondent no. 2 lodged F.I.R. No. 005 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow against the applicant with the allegation that on the said date, he was called for recording his evidence in the court of ADJ, VI in relation to Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 (supra). It is further alleged therein that the informant went out in the recess, at the same time, he received a call from mobile No. 7054481147 that the court is calling him, on which, he went to the court and at the gate of court No. 6, the applicant was there, who caught hold his collar and started giving threat for compromise, on which, skirmish took place at the door of the aforesaid court. It is also alleged that the applicant snatched the name plate, star and badges of respondent no. 2 and had also threatened him not to give any evidence.

5. The investigation of the aforesaid case was conducted by the Investigating Officer, Amit Kumar-Sub Inspector, who recorded the statement of the staff (Ardali) of the said court, from whom mobile, the aforesaid call was made to respondent no. 2. Learned counsel the applicant vehemently submits the said staff categorically denied any such incident. It is also submitted that the site plan was also prepared by the Investigating Officer, in which, the place of incident is shown at the door of court no. 5 (page 156). It is next submitted that private respondent had also given one application for providing security for giving evidence in Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 (supra), on which, adequate security was provided 3 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 to him. It is informed that in the name of his security, 16 police officials were deployed by Mr. Tarunendra Tripathi, Inspector (Security) along with one section of PAC. It is vehemently submitted that even then, respondent no. 2 is avoiding the proceedings. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the order dated 19.02.2025, learned counsel for the applicant submits that all these facts have also been observed by the trial court. Order dated 19.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 492 of 2015 (State Vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors.) is as under : "पुकारा गया। अिभयुक्तगण संजय गुप्ता, अजीत िसह एवं लाला उफर् कृ ष्ण कु मार गुप्ता उपिस्थत। पत्रावली आज साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय के परीक्षण हेतु िनयत थी। साक्षी अनुपिस्थत। आदेश पित्रका िदनांक 10-01-2025 के अनुसार साक्षी द्वारा न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होने पर स्वयं को अिभयुक्त संजय गुप्ता द्वारा हमले का खतरा होने का आधार िलया गया था, िजसके संदभर् में सुरक्षा प्रभारी जनपद न्यायालय सोनभद्र को पत्र प्रेिषत िकया गया था। साक्षी आज पुनः अनुपिस्थत है और उसका साक्ष्य जिरये वीिडयो कॉन्फ्रें िसग कराये जाने के संदभर् में पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई को पत्रांक सं0- सी०ए/एस०पी०/52/(साक्ष्य अनुमत)/2025 प्रेिषत िकया गया है, िजसमें साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय पर अिधवक्ताओं के समूह द्वारा जनवरी, 2024 में हमला करने के आधार पर साक्ष्य वीिडयो कॉन्फ्रें िसग से कराये जाने की अनुमित चाही गयी है। श्री तारुणेन्द्र ित्रपाठी िनरीक्षक सुरक्षा प्रभारी जनपद न्यायालय, लखनऊ के द्वारा साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय की सुरक्षा हेतु 16 पुिलस कमीर् िनयुक्त िकये थे और इसके अितिरक्त एक सेक्शन पी०ए०सी०, िजसमें एक हे०कांन्सटेबल, चार कॉन्सटेबल, िनयुक्त िकये गये थे। थानाध्यक्ष के अनुसार बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा िदनांक 17-02-2025 को अपने मोबाईल नं0-8299667505 से कॉन्सटेबल रामायण भारती के मोबाईल नं0- 7007813115 पर वातार् होने पर सूिचत िकया गया िक वह कितपय कारणों से गवाही हेतु िदनांक 19-02- 2025 को न्यायालय में उपिस्थत नहीं होंगे। अतः न्यायालय में गवाही न देने के जो कारण साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई को बताये गये हैं और जो कारण कॉ० रामायण भारती को बताये गये है, दोनों परस्पर िवरोधाभाषी हैं। जहाँ तक प्रश्न अिधवक्ता के समूह द्वारा न्यायालय पिरसर में बृजेश कु मार राय पर हमला करने के प्रकरण का है तो पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई द्वारा प्रेिषत पत्र में ऐसा कहीं नहीं िलखा है िक बृजेश कु मार राय के ऊपर किथत हमला इसिलए िकया गया क्योंिक वह प्रकरण में गवाह है तथा थाना मानकनगर, लखनऊ से प्राप्त पत्रांक के अनुसार बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा कितपय कारणों से िदनांक 19-02-2025 को न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होने में असमथर्ता व्यक्त की गयी थी। इससे स्पष्ट है िक साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय स्वयं ही न्यायालय में साक्ष्य देने हेतु उपिस्थत नहीं होना चाहता। जबिक उनकी सुरक्षा के िलए जनपद न्यायालय लखनऊ के सुरक्षा प्रभारी द्वारा स्वयं के अितिरक्त 16 पुिलस कमीर् तथा 5 पी०ए०सी० के जवानों की ड्यूटी 4 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 लगायी गयी थी और थाना मानकनगर द्वारा सुरक्षा की व्यवस्था इसीिलए नहीं की गयी क्योंिक साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा स्वयं ही न्यायालय में साक्ष्य हेतु कितपय कारणों से उपिस्थत न होने का कथन िकया गया है। न्यायालय ऐसी कोई उपधारणा नहीं कर सकता है िक माननीय अिधवक्ता गु ंडों के समूह है और उनके द्वारा न्यायालय पिरसर में अराजकता फै लाई जाती है। साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय स्वयं ही पुिलस बल के सदस्य हैं और यिद उनको खुद ही लखनऊ पुिलस द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी सुरक्षा पर िवश्वास नहीं है तो इसका क्या कारण है, यह िस्थित साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय से स्पष्ट करायी जानी आवश्यक है। अतः साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय यह िस्थित स्पष्ट करे िक उन्हें लखनऊ पुिलस द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी सुरक्षा पर भरोसा क्यों नहीं है। पत्रावली िदनांक 04-3-2025 को बृजेश कु मार राय के स्पष्टीकरण हेतु िनयत की जाती है।"

6. Learned A.G.A. prays for some time to seek instructions.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R.s, order dated 19.02.2025 as well as other relevant documents, the matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to respondent no. 2. S.H.O. concerned shall inform to respondent no. 2 about the next date of listing of the present case.

9. List this case on 15.12.2025.

10. Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

11. On the next date, Investigating Officer of F.I.R. No. 5 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow shall appear before this Court along with complete case diary.

12. Director General of Police, Lucknow is also directed to ensure the presence of private respondent no. 2-Mr. Brijesh Kumar Rai, Inspector, PNO 052462216, Mobile no. 9299687505 before the trial court for giving his evidence in S.T. No. 492 of 2015 (supra). It is also expected from the Senior Officials of the police authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the private respondent, who is deliberately not cooperating in the trial of the aforesaid 5 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 case, which is pending since the year 2015.

13. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Lucknow for necessary compliance, forthwith. December 3, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Mr. Brijesh Kumar Rai, Inspector, PNO 052462216, mobile no. 8299687505 through I.G. (Establishment), Police Headquarter, Lucknow.

3. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.04.2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 117482 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 005 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel the applicant submits that private respondent, who was posted as S.H.O., P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow, on the basis of incorrect fact, challaned the applicant in Case Crime No. 88 of 2013, under Sections 307, 323, 353, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow. Another F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 89 of 2013, under Section 27/30 of Arms Act, P.S. Manaknagar, District Lucknow was also lodged against the applicant on the same date, i.e., on 17.08.2013 with the allegation that applicant opened fire on police party. It is further submitted that prior to the aforesaid cases, applicant, who is a 2 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 practicing lawyer, was not having any criminal antecedent. Later on, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the trial was proceeded by framing of charges against the applicant, whereafter, summon was issued by Additional Sessions Judge/District Judge, Court No. 6, Lucknow in S.T. No. 492 of

2015. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the private respondent is informant of the aforesaid case, but he was continuously avoiding the proceeding, due to which, notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. was issued, on which, he appeared before the trial court on 04.01.2024. However, in place of giving statement, by misusing his position, respondent no. 2 lodged F.I.R. No. 005 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow against the applicant with the allegation that on the said date, he was called for recording his evidence in the court of ADJ, VI in relation to Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 (supra). It is further alleged therein that the informant went out in the recess, at the same time, he received a call from mobile No. 7054481147 that the court is calling him, on which, he went to the court and at the gate of court No. 6, the applicant was there, who caught hold his collar and started giving threat for compromise, on which, skirmish took place at the door of the aforesaid court. It is also alleged that the applicant snatched the name plate, star and badges of respondent no. 2 and had also threatened him not to give any evidence.

5. The investigation of the aforesaid case was conducted by the Investigating Officer, Amit Kumar-Sub Inspector, who recorded the statement of the staff (Ardali) of the said court, from whom mobile, the aforesaid call was made to respondent no. 2. Learned counsel the applicant vehemently submits the said staff categorically denied any such incident. It is also submitted that the site plan was also prepared by the Investigating Officer, in which, the place of incident is shown at the door of court no. 5 (page 156). It is next submitted that private respondent had also given one application for providing security for giving evidence in Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 (supra), on which, adequate security was provided 3 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 to him. It is informed that in the name of his security, 16 police officials were deployed by Mr. Tarunendra Tripathi, Inspector (Security) along with one section of PAC. It is vehemently submitted that even then, respondent no. 2 is avoiding the proceedings. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the order dated 19.02.2025, learned counsel for the applicant submits that all these facts have also been observed by the trial court. Order dated 19.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 492 of 2015 (State Vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors.) is as under : "पुकारा गया। अिभयुक्तगण संजय गुप्ता, अजीत िसह एवं लाला उफर् कृ ष्ण कु मार गुप्ता उपिस्थत। पत्रावली आज साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय के परीक्षण हेतु िनयत थी। साक्षी अनुपिस्थत। आदेश पित्रका िदनांक 10-01-2025 के अनुसार साक्षी द्वारा न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होने पर स्वयं को अिभयुक्त संजय गुप्ता द्वारा हमले का खतरा होने का आधार िलया गया था, िजसके संदभर् में सुरक्षा प्रभारी जनपद न्यायालय सोनभद्र को पत्र प्रेिषत िकया गया था। साक्षी आज पुनः अनुपिस्थत है और उसका साक्ष्य जिरये वीिडयो कॉन्फ्रें िसग कराये जाने के संदभर् में पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई को पत्रांक सं0- सी०ए/एस०पी०/52/(साक्ष्य अनुमत)/2025 प्रेिषत िकया गया है, िजसमें साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय पर अिधवक्ताओं के समूह द्वारा जनवरी, 2024 में हमला करने के आधार पर साक्ष्य वीिडयो कॉन्फ्रें िसग से कराये जाने की अनुमित चाही गयी है। श्री तारुणेन्द्र ित्रपाठी िनरीक्षक सुरक्षा प्रभारी जनपद न्यायालय, लखनऊ के द्वारा साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय की सुरक्षा हेतु 16 पुिलस कमीर् िनयुक्त िकये थे और इसके अितिरक्त एक सेक्शन पी०ए०सी०, िजसमें एक हे०कांन्सटेबल, चार कॉन्सटेबल, िनयुक्त िकये गये थे। थानाध्यक्ष के अनुसार बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा िदनांक 17-02-2025 को अपने मोबाईल नं0-8299667505 से कॉन्सटेबल रामायण भारती के मोबाईल नं0- 7007813115 पर वातार् होने पर सूिचत िकया गया िक वह कितपय कारणों से गवाही हेतु िदनांक 19-02- 2025 को न्यायालय में उपिस्थत नहीं होंगे। अतः न्यायालय में गवाही न देने के जो कारण साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई को बताये गये हैं और जो कारण कॉ० रामायण भारती को बताये गये है, दोनों परस्पर िवरोधाभाषी हैं। जहाँ तक प्रश्न अिधवक्ता के समूह द्वारा न्यायालय पिरसर में बृजेश कु मार राय पर हमला करने के प्रकरण का है तो पुिलस अधीक्षक हरदोई द्वारा प्रेिषत पत्र में ऐसा कहीं नहीं िलखा है िक बृजेश कु मार राय के ऊपर किथत हमला इसिलए िकया गया क्योंिक वह प्रकरण में गवाह है तथा थाना मानकनगर, लखनऊ से प्राप्त पत्रांक के अनुसार बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा कितपय कारणों से िदनांक 19-02-2025 को न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होने में असमथर्ता व्यक्त की गयी थी। इससे स्पष्ट है िक साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय स्वयं ही न्यायालय में साक्ष्य देने हेतु उपिस्थत नहीं होना चाहता। जबिक उनकी सुरक्षा के िलए जनपद न्यायालय लखनऊ के सुरक्षा प्रभारी द्वारा स्वयं के अितिरक्त 16 पुिलस कमीर् तथा 5 पी०ए०सी० के जवानों की ड्यूटी 4 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 लगायी गयी थी और थाना मानकनगर द्वारा सुरक्षा की व्यवस्था इसीिलए नहीं की गयी क्योंिक साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय द्वारा स्वयं ही न्यायालय में साक्ष्य हेतु कितपय कारणों से उपिस्थत न होने का कथन िकया गया है। न्यायालय ऐसी कोई उपधारणा नहीं कर सकता है िक माननीय अिधवक्ता गु ंडों के समूह है और उनके द्वारा न्यायालय पिरसर में अराजकता फै लाई जाती है। साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय स्वयं ही पुिलस बल के सदस्य हैं और यिद उनको खुद ही लखनऊ पुिलस द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी सुरक्षा पर िवश्वास नहीं है तो इसका क्या कारण है, यह िस्थित साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय से स्पष्ट करायी जानी आवश्यक है। अतः साक्षी बृजेश कु मार राय यह िस्थित स्पष्ट करे िक उन्हें लखनऊ पुिलस द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी सुरक्षा पर भरोसा क्यों नहीं है। पत्रावली िदनांक 04-3-2025 को बृजेश कु मार राय के स्पष्टीकरण हेतु िनयत की जाती है।"

6. Learned A.G.A. prays for some time to seek instructions.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R.s, order dated 19.02.2025 as well as other relevant documents, the matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to respondent no. 2. S.H.O. concerned shall inform to respondent no. 2 about the next date of listing of the present case.

9. List this case on 15.12.2025.

10. Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

11. On the next date, Investigating Officer of F.I.R. No. 5 of 2024, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow shall appear before this Court along with complete case diary.

12. Director General of Police, Lucknow is also directed to ensure the presence of private respondent no. 2-Mr. Brijesh Kumar Rai, Inspector, PNO 052462216, Mobile no. 9299687505 before the trial court for giving his evidence in S.T. No. 492 of 2015 (supra). It is also expected from the Senior Officials of the police authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the private respondent, who is deliberately not cooperating in the trial of the aforesaid 5 A482 No. 9710 of 2025 case, which is pending since the year 2015.

13. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Lucknow for necessary compliance, forthwith. December 3, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)