High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4601 of 2023 Applicant :- Ratan @ Ratan Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav,Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Counter affidavits have been filed by Sri Alok Singh, Addl. Director General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur and by Sri Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur today in Court which are taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not intend to file any response to the said counter affidavits. On 23.2.2023, following order was passed by this Court:- List revised. Heard Sri Jaisingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ratan @ Ratan Singh Yadav with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceeding of 82 Cr.P.C. dated 13.12.2022, N.B.W. order dated 29.6.2022 and summoning order dated 13.12.2007 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.S.T. No. 96 of 2019 (State versus Constable Ganesh and others) Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacaity) Lalitpur thereby the learned court below has issued process against the applicant and the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 395/397 I.P.C. It is also prayed that the further proceedings of S.S.T. No. 96 of 2019 (State versus Constable Ganesh and others) Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacaity) Lalitpur may also be stayed during the pendency of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a police constable posted at Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur at the time of incident, but as of now is posted in Police Lines District Mahoba. It is argued that the trial of the applicant was separated with that of the co-accused Sahab Singh and 6 others which was numbered as Special Session Trial No. 111 of 2008 (State vs. Sahab Singh and 6 others) in which vide judgement and order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Additional Session/Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Lalitpur, the said accused therein namely Sahab Singh, Summer Singh, Bharat Singh, Tatoo, Vindravan, Gokul, Sajan were acquitted of the charges under Sections 395, 397 I.P.C. It is argued that as such the applicant is also entitled to be extended the benefit of the said judgement and order of acquittal and the proceedings against the applicant be quashed. It is further argued while placing para-13 of the affidavit in support of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that till date no notice or summons have been served on the applicant and he does not know regarding the case pending against him due to which he did not appear before the trial court and it was only on 2nd January, 2023 from the office of Superintendent of Police, District Mahoba, he came to know of the case against him and then he met a local counsel and obtained the relevant documents and has approached this Court. It is argued that as such the order dated 13.12.2022 issuing process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., the order dated 29.06.2022 issuing non-bailable warrants against him and the order dated 13.12.2007 issuing summons against him be set aside. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a glaring case of police personnel being shielded by his department itself as would appear from the facts which are enumerated herein below:- (a) A complaint dated 23.10.2007 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against 11 named persons namely Sammar Singh, Sahab Singh, Summer Singh, Bharat Singh, Tatoo, Vrindavan, Gokul, Sajan, Constable Ganesh, Constable Ratan and Constable Brijbhan in which the applicant was arrayed as an accused at serial no. 10, for the offences under Section 395, 397 I.P.C. The said complaint was registered and inquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was done by the trial court. Subsequently vide order dated 13.7.2007 the accused persons being 10 in number including the applicant barring Sammar Singh, were summoned by Additional Session/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur for the offences under Sections 395, 397 I.P.C. The applicant did not appear before the trial court. (b) In so far as the trial of 07 other named accused persons are concerned, was separated which ended in acquittal vide judgement and order dated 17.5.2012. The applicant continued to abscond till date. (c) Vide order dated 01.3.2017 non bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and other accused persons along with process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. The same continued till 13.12.2021, after which the trial court directed issuance of letter to S.O. and S.P. concerned and again issued non bailable warrants against the accused persons. Then subsequently vide order dated 31.3.2022 non bailable warrants against the accused persons were issued and the trial court again directed issuance of letter to S.H.O. and Police Office. The same was repeated on 29.6.2022, 25.8.2022 and 17.10.2022. Subsequently the trial court vide its order dated 13.12.2022 issued process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons for which it directed to issue a letter to S.P. concerned. The order sheet shows that the trial court tried its level best to secure attendance of the absconded accused persons including the applicant. It is really surprising to note that despite the applicant being posted in the same district, summons, non-bailable warrants, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. could not be served and executed against him since 2007. Good 16 years have been passed since then which clearly shows the efficiency of the police. It is further surprising to note that as per pleading in para-15 of the affidavit, the applicant continued to be posted in district Lalitpur and Mahoba and worked in the police department despite his being absconding in a criminal case. This really calls for a deeper thought on the issue. In these circumstances, at the first place a counter affidavit is called for from the learned counsel for the State of the S.P. concerned and also the concerned A.D.G. of Zone, after bringing this fact to the notice of D.G.P., Uttar Pradesh and seeking advise and direction from him which shall also be narrated and disclosed in counter affidavit. Counter affidavit shall also disclose as to who were the persons responsible for non-service of summons, non-execution of the non-bailable warrants, process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. upon the applicant and what effective steps they have taken for compliance of the trial court orders and execution and service of the same and if any action is proposed to be taken against them, the same may be taken and also disclosed. Since the applicant had continued to remain absconding for about 16 years as of now the benefit of acquittal of other accused persons is not extended to him. Let the counter affidavit be filed within two weeks from today. The applicant will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit, if any. List on 6.4.2023 for further hearing. Let a copy of this order also be communicated to the trial court concerned by the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court within seven days from today." It is informed today by learned counsel for the State that Constable Dinesh Kumar and Constable Brijbhan Singh have surrendered before the court concerned on 1.4.2023. Learned counsel has further stated that Ratan @ Ratan Singh Yadav, the applicant was arrested on 3.4.2023. Learned counsel has placed para 7 to 12 of the counter affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur and has stated that an inquiry was conducted for fixing responsibility on the police personnel/officers responsible for negligence and laxity in the discharge of their duties. The officers have been identified and action has been taken against them. The said para are quoted herein-in-below:- "7. That it is humbly submitted that in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 23.2.2023, the deponent, after considering the lapse occurred in the present matter, has taken a very serious view and, vide order dated 26.3.2023, directed the Circle Officer - Madawara, Lalitpur to immediately conduct and inquiry in the entire matter and to submit its report after fixing responsibility on the personnel/officers responsible for negligence, and laxity in the discharge of their duties. A copy of the order dated 26.03.2023 passed by the deponent is being enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no.1 to this affidavit. 8. That pursuant to the aforesaid order, an inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer - Madawara and vide his report dated 27.03.2023, the inquiry officer as aforesaid has arrived at a finding that Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar Nigam, Sub-Inspector Sudhakar Singh and Sub-Inspector Rahees Singh posted at Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur were prima-facie guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty. A copy of report dated 27.03.2023 submitted by the Circle Officer -Madawara to the deponent is being enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no.2 to this affidavit. 9. That after perusing the report (supra) dated 27.03.2023, the deponent, vide order dated 27.03.2023, has directed the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur to conduct a preliminary inquiry against the personnel / officers, who were found prima-facie responsible for negligence, and laxity in the discharge of their duties. A copy of the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the deponent is being enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no.3 to this affidavit. 10. That it is humbly submitted that pending inquiry, by order dated 02.04.2023 has suspended the Inspector Sudhakar Singh and Sub-Inspector Raheesh Singh. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2023 suspending the Inspector Sudhakar Singh and Sub-Inspector Raheesh Singh are being collectively enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no.4 to this affidavit. 11. That the deponent assures this Hon'ble Court that upon receiving the inquiry report (supra), strict action according to relevant and applicable extant rules shall be taken against the personnel found guilty of the lapse in the instant case. 12. That it is submitted that Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar Nigam, i.e. third person held guilty of the negligence as per the inquiry report dated 27.03.2023 has been transferred outside the jurisdiction of District Lalitpur and is at present posted at Distict Jalaun. In this context, necessary communication has been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun for taking necessary action against him." In so far as one of the officers namely Raj Kumar Nigam is concerned, it is averred in para 12 that he is posted at District Jalaun and necessary communication has been sent to S.P. Jalaun for taking necessary action but there is no clarity as to what action has been taken and whether any action has been taken against him or not. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ratan @ Ratan Singh Yadav with the prayer to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceeding of 83 Cr.P.C. dated 13.12.2022, N.B.W. order dated 29.6.2022 and summoning order dated 13.12.2007 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.S.T. No. 96 of 2019 (State versus Constable Ganesh and others) Police Station Madawara, District Lalitpur pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity) Lalitpur thereby the learned court below has issued process against the applicant and the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 395/397 I.P.C. and further with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant states that since the applicant Ratan @ Ratan Singh Yadav is in jail, appropriate direction be issued to the trial court to decide his bail application on the same day. He further states that although the prayer has been made for quashing of the proceeding u/s 83 Cr.P.C., NBW, summoning order and entire proceedings of the case but he does not press the same. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.
Decision
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of proceeding u/s 83 Cr.P.C., NBW, summoning order and entire proceedings is dismissed as not pressed. In so far as the question of deciding the bail application is concerned, it is the duty of the concerned trial court to decide the bail application of the accused as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without granting undue adjournment and unnecessarily lingering on the same. No order as prayed for direction for deciding the bail application needs to be passed. The present application is disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad