High Court

4. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS beseeching the quashing of S.T. No. 128 of 2016 (State Vs. Neeraj Chauhan & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 533 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi.

5. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the warrant has been illegally issued against the present applicant without ascertaining his identity, as to whether he is the same person, namely, Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan who has been arraigned in the charge sheet. He has emphasized that one Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan was named in the FIR, being Case Crime No. 533 of 2016. Subsequently, same person has been arraigned in the charge sheet dated 27.11.2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. However, present applicant, who is named as Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan, has illegally been summoned to face trial.

6. Record evinces that at point No.11 in the charge sheet, Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan has been arraigned as accused No. 3 and his address has been mentioned as Malhath, Phoolpur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Bailable 2 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 warrant has been issued against him but the same could not be served upon Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan on the ground that no such person was found in the village. Subsequently, Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi has passed an order dated 2.9.2022, exercising his power under Section 72 of the CrPC, directing the Station House Officer to serve the summon upon Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan and produce before the court for proceedings of the case, after arresting him. Police has submitted report dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure No. 8) to the effect upon inquiry, it has been found that Raju is also known by the nickname Indrajeet, and his father is also known by the nickname Shravan Chauhan, thus, further proceedings may be initiated accordingly against warantee, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan alias Raju Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan alias Kallu Chauhan. Now, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, local police is attempting to illegally arrest the present applicant, who has no concern with the identity of Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan.

7. Learned AGA has contended that after inquiry, police has submitted the report dated 20.11.2023 disclosing the identity of Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan, who is also named as Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan.

8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of report, it manifests that the inquiry report dated 20.11.2023 submitted by local police has been made basis to ascertain the identity of the present applicant being an arraigned accused, namely, Rajju Chauhan S/o Kallu Chauhan. However, learned trial court has failed to examine the matter so as to ascertain the identity of the warrant accused, namely, whether Raju Chauhan S/o Kallu Chauhan and Indrajeet Chauhan S/o Shrawan Chauhan are one and the common person against whom warrant has been issued in case crime No. 533 of 2016. Even identification parade has not been conducted with intent to ascertain the involvement of the present applicant in the occurrence of the offence as mentioned in the F.I.R. No reliable identification evidence has been adduced before the court in this respect. Needless to say that Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that identity of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and any innocent person should not be penalised. If an accused shows that he is not the same person named in the F.I.R./warrant, the court must conduct an enquiry before proceedings. In this respect it would not be out of context to refer the Section 54A inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1984, Section 8 (w.e.f. 1.5.1984) and the central amendment inserting Section 54A by Act 25 of 2005, Section 11 (w.e.f. 23.6.2006). For ready reference both the aforesaid amendments are quoted hereinbelow : [U.P. Act No. 1 of 1984, Section 8, (w.e.f. 1.5.1984)] "54-A. Test identification of the accused- When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his test identification by any witness is considered necessary by any Court having jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for 3 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 an Executive Magistrate acting at the instance of such Court, to hold test identification of the person arrested." [Act 25 of 2005, Section 11 (w.e.f. 23.6.2006)] "54A. Identification of person arrested Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.] [Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with: Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process shall be video- graphed.[Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013]"

9. Provisions for test identification of the accused, as mentioned above, evinces that initially State of U.P. has promulgated Act No.1 of 1984 authorising the court concerned to identify the main accused in case there is any dispute with regard to identity of the accused who has been arraigned in the charge sheet. Subsequently, Central Government has inserted a new Section 54A in the year 2006 authorizing the officer-in-charge of the police station to move an appropriate application during course of investigation before the court concerned for the purposes of identification of a person or persons if their identification is necessary for the purposes of investigation. In the matter at hand there is a glaring identification dispute of the accused who is named in the FIR and arraigned in the charge sheet, and against whom warrant has been issued. Present applicant is denying his identity being as an accused who has been named in the FIR and arraigned in the charge sheet. In this backdrop of the fact, mere a police report dated 20.11.2023, who has submitted on its own to proceed with the warrant against the present applicant, would not be sufficient to initiate trial against the present applicant pretending his identity being an accused against whom warrant has been issued. I am of the view that learned court concerned should pass a judicial order with regard to the identity of the present applicant, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shrawan Chauhan, being an accused person named as Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan. Summoning the present applicant without ascertaining his identity being an accused warranted would amount abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure the 4 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 ends of justice, his identity should be ascertained first.

10. Resultantly, instant application u/s 528 BNSS succeed and allowed partly with the following directions:— (i) The present applicant shall appear before the court below and move a detailed application/objection for asserting mistaken identity, that he is not the same person who is wanted in F.I.R./charge sheet. (ii) Learned court, upon receiving the application, as mentioned in direction No. 1, shall direct the police verification, witness identification, call for supporting documents and then decide the said application in accordance with law, as early as possible, so that original criminal proceedings would not be impeded unnecessary. (iii) If the court is satisfied that the warrant was wrongly issued against the present applicant (wrong person), proceedings against him should be dropped. However, if the court is satisfied that the warrant was rightly issued against the person concerned, who is wanted in F.I.R./charge sheet, appropriate order should be passed, accordingly, to proceed further. (iv) Till the decision on the aforesaid application/objection, as mentioned in direction No. 1, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicant, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan. Order Date :- 22.8.2025/vinay

4. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS beseeching the quashing of S.T. No. 128 of 2016 (State Vs. Neeraj Chauhan & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 533 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi.

5. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the warrant has been illegally issued against the present applicant without ascertaining his identity, as to whether he is the same person, namely, Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan who has been arraigned in the charge sheet. He has emphasized that one Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan was named in the FIR, being Case Crime No. 533 of 2016. Subsequently, same person has been arraigned in the charge sheet dated 27.11.2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. However, present applicant, who is named as Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan, has illegally been summoned to face trial.

6. Record evinces that at point No.11 in the charge sheet, Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan has been arraigned as accused No. 3 and his address has been mentioned as Malhath, Phoolpur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Bailable 2 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 warrant has been issued against him but the same could not be served upon Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan on the ground that no such person was found in the village. Subsequently, Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi has passed an order dated 2.9.2022, exercising his power under Section 72 of the CrPC, directing the Station House Officer to serve the summon upon Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan and produce before the court for proceedings of the case, after arresting him. Police has submitted report dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure No. 8) to the effect upon inquiry, it has been found that Raju is also known by the nickname Indrajeet, and his father is also known by the nickname Shravan Chauhan, thus, further proceedings may be initiated accordingly against warantee, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan alias Raju Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan alias Kallu Chauhan. Now, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, local police is attempting to illegally arrest the present applicant, who has no concern with the identity of Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan.

7. Learned AGA has contended that after inquiry, police has submitted the report dated 20.11.2023 disclosing the identity of Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan, who is also named as Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shravan Chauhan.

8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of report, it manifests that the inquiry report dated 20.11.2023 submitted by local police has been made basis to ascertain the identity of the present applicant being an arraigned accused, namely, Rajju Chauhan S/o Kallu Chauhan. However, learned trial court has failed to examine the matter so as to ascertain the identity of the warrant accused, namely, whether Raju Chauhan S/o Kallu Chauhan and Indrajeet Chauhan S/o Shrawan Chauhan are one and the common person against whom warrant has been issued in case crime No. 533 of 2016. Even identification parade has not been conducted with intent to ascertain the involvement of the present applicant in the occurrence of the offence as mentioned in the F.I.R. No reliable identification evidence has been adduced before the court in this respect. Needless to say that Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that identity of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and any innocent person should not be penalised. If an accused shows that he is not the same person named in the F.I.R./warrant, the court must conduct an enquiry before proceedings. In this respect it would not be out of context to refer the Section 54A inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1984, Section 8 (w.e.f. 1.5.1984) and the central amendment inserting Section 54A by Act 25 of 2005, Section 11 (w.e.f. 23.6.2006). For ready reference both the aforesaid amendments are quoted hereinbelow : [U.P. Act No. 1 of 1984, Section 8, (w.e.f. 1.5.1984)] "54-A. Test identification of the accused- When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his test identification by any witness is considered necessary by any Court having jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for 3 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 an Executive Magistrate acting at the instance of such Court, to hold test identification of the person arrested." [Act 25 of 2005, Section 11 (w.e.f. 23.6.2006)] "54A. Identification of person arrested Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.] [Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with: Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process shall be video- graphed.[Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013]"

9. Provisions for test identification of the accused, as mentioned above, evinces that initially State of U.P. has promulgated Act No.1 of 1984 authorising the court concerned to identify the main accused in case there is any dispute with regard to identity of the accused who has been arraigned in the charge sheet. Subsequently, Central Government has inserted a new Section 54A in the year 2006 authorizing the officer-in-charge of the police station to move an appropriate application during course of investigation before the court concerned for the purposes of identification of a person or persons if their identification is necessary for the purposes of investigation. In the matter at hand there is a glaring identification dispute of the accused who is named in the FIR and arraigned in the charge sheet, and against whom warrant has been issued. Present applicant is denying his identity being as an accused who has been named in the FIR and arraigned in the charge sheet. In this backdrop of the fact, mere a police report dated 20.11.2023, who has submitted on its own to proceed with the warrant against the present applicant, would not be sufficient to initiate trial against the present applicant pretending his identity being an accused against whom warrant has been issued. I am of the view that learned court concerned should pass a judicial order with regard to the identity of the present applicant, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan son of Shrawan Chauhan, being an accused person named as Raju Chauhan son of Kallu Chauhan. Summoning the present applicant without ascertaining his identity being an accused warranted would amount abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure the 4 NA528 No. 26826 of 2025 ends of justice, his identity should be ascertained first.

10. Resultantly, instant application u/s 528 BNSS succeed and allowed partly with the following directions:— (i) The present applicant shall appear before the court below and move a detailed application/objection for asserting mistaken identity, that he is not the same person who is wanted in F.I.R./charge sheet. (ii) Learned court, upon receiving the application, as mentioned in direction No. 1, shall direct the police verification, witness identification, call for supporting documents and then decide the said application in accordance with law, as early as possible, so that original criminal proceedings would not be impeded unnecessary. (iii) If the court is satisfied that the warrant was wrongly issued against the present applicant (wrong person), proceedings against him should be dropped. However, if the court is satisfied that the warrant was rightly issued against the person concerned, who is wanted in F.I.R./charge sheet, appropriate order should be passed, accordingly, to proceed further. (iv) Till the decision on the aforesaid application/objection, as mentioned in direction No. 1, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicant, namely, Indrajeet Chauhan. Order Date :- 22.8.2025/vinay