Bhaina v. State of U.P. and Ors

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 232/2005 : State of U.P. Vs. Prem Narain and others arising out of Case Crime No.68/2002, under Sections 395/397 and 412 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P., Sitapur, District Sitapur alongwith impugned chargesheet no.18/dated 14.9.2002 filed in Case Crime No.68/2002(supra). 2 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013

3. As per the prosecution's story, the opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR/Crime no. 68/2002 under sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC at police station GRP Sitapur. mentioning therein that on 7/8/2002 offence of dacoity had been committed by unknown persons. On 9/8/2002, the opposite party no. 3 along with the police force of the police station Kamlapur jointly arrested 4 persons, namely (1) Baij Nath s/o Sri Shiv Deen Yadav, (2) Chhotkanne alias Jagat Narain s/o Sri Shee Ram Badai, (3) Barati s/o Sri Badaloo, (4) Srawan Kumar s/o Sri Chet Ram, all residents of village Kuknamau, police station Kamlapur. Feeling aggrieved from the police atrocities, villagers and village pradhan of Kuknamau and Ram Prashad s/o Babu Pasi, resident of Gaura, made a complaint on 10/10/2002 before the state government against the police officers and made a request for a fresh investigation of the case crime no. 68/2002 u/s 395/397 and 412 IPC and case crime no. 79/2002 u/s 504 and 506 IPC along with section 145 of the Railway Act. The request of Ram Prashad was accepted by the government and both cases were transferred for further investigation through the CBCID Lucknow division. The CBCID, after completing the investigation, transcribed their conclusion in the case diary on 17/3/2005 that both cases are false and fabricated, and also recommended registration of the FIR under section 465, 468,471, and 218 IPC against the then GRP Station Officer Sri Jamil Ahmad.

4. After the further investigation, the petitioner was under impression that the case had been finalized on the basis of further investigation report. Still, he was shocked when he learned about the non-bailable warrant order dated 13/11/2013. 3 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, the petitioner was named amongst the accused and summons/ warrants proceedings issued. Subsequently, on

10.10.2002, a fresh complaint was made by Shri Ram Prasad, son of Babu Pasi, village Gaura before the State Government requesting transfer of Investigation of Crime No.68/2002 and Crime No.79/2002 to the C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow Division on grounds of false implication by G.R.P. Police. The government accepted the request.

6. The C.B.C.I.D. investigated and on 17.3.2005 submitted a report concluding that both the cases are false, fabricated and recommended registration of an F.I.R. under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 218 I.P.C. against the G.R.P. Station Officer Shri Jamir Ahmad.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the investigation was transferred and a clean chit was given, the proceedings under Crime No.68/2002 continued based on the previous earlier chargesheet. Issuance of warrant is void ab initio and in the interest of justice, the entire proceedings must be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. states that the original chargesheet has been filed. The matter is pending trial. The warrant is validly issued and that investigation transferred etc. do not epso facto lead to quashing unless the court is satisfied.

9. The issue of considerations before this Court are as under :- 4 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013 a. Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in the facts of the case. b. If maintainable, whether the material on record justify exercise of inherent powers of his Court to quash the proceedings. c. Whether the fact of transferred investigating, a non bailable warrant and alleged clean chit by the supervisory investigation agency i.e. C.B.C.I.D. dis-entitle the respondents from proceeding with the original case.

10. On the question of maintainability, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice. However such power must be exercised sparingly and only when it is manifested that the allegations even if accepted in entirety, would not sustain the prosecution or there is clear evidence of abuse of process.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the original investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. and that C.B.C.I.D. submitted a report dated 17.3.2005 declaring the case false and recommended action against the investigating officer. If this is correct an final report was submitted by the C.B.C.I.D., then there is weight to the arguments that further proceedings would be an abuse of the process and warrant issued on that basis, may be void.

12. Having regard to the ongoing material on record, the court finds that:- 5 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013 a. the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. b. The petitioner had demonstrated a strong prima facie case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the subsequent submissions of a clean chit report by the CBCID, the subsistence of the non bailable warrant is legally unsustainable. c. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of process and injustice to the petitioner, the non bailable warrant issued against him and the entire pending proceedings in Case Crime No.68 of 2002 under Section 395/397 I.P.C. and Section 412 I.P.C. are hereby quashed. d. The respondents are directed to refrain from taking any further coercive measures against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Nevertheless, the State shall remain at liberty to undertake fresh investigation or proceedings, in accordance with law, in the event that new facts come to light.

13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of above. November 19, 2025 Shukla. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 232/2005 : State of U.P. Vs. Prem Narain and others arising out of Case Crime No.68/2002, under Sections 395/397 and 412 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P., Sitapur, District Sitapur alongwith impugned chargesheet no.18/dated 14.9.2002 filed in Case Crime No.68/2002(supra). 2 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013

3. As per the prosecution's story, the opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR/Crime no. 68/2002 under sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC at police station GRP Sitapur. mentioning therein that on 7/8/2002 offence of dacoity had been committed by unknown persons. On 9/8/2002, the opposite party no. 3 along with the police force of the police station Kamlapur jointly arrested 4 persons, namely (1) Baij Nath s/o Sri Shiv Deen Yadav, (2) Chhotkanne alias Jagat Narain s/o Sri Shee Ram Badai, (3) Barati s/o Sri Badaloo, (4) Srawan Kumar s/o Sri Chet Ram, all residents of village Kuknamau, police station Kamlapur. Feeling aggrieved from the police atrocities, villagers and village pradhan of Kuknamau and Ram Prashad s/o Babu Pasi, resident of Gaura, made a complaint on 10/10/2002 before the state government against the police officers and made a request for a fresh investigation of the case crime no. 68/2002 u/s 395/397 and 412 IPC and case crime no. 79/2002 u/s 504 and 506 IPC along with section 145 of the Railway Act. The request of Ram Prashad was accepted by the government and both cases were transferred for further investigation through the CBCID Lucknow division. The CBCID, after completing the investigation, transcribed their conclusion in the case diary on 17/3/2005 that both cases are false and fabricated, and also recommended registration of the FIR under section 465, 468,471, and 218 IPC against the then GRP Station Officer Sri Jamil Ahmad.

4. After the further investigation, the petitioner was under impression that the case had been finalized on the basis of further investigation report. Still, he was shocked when he learned about the non-bailable warrant order dated 13/11/2013. 3 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, the petitioner was named amongst the accused and summons/ warrants proceedings issued. Subsequently, on

10.10.2002, a fresh complaint was made by Shri Ram Prasad, son of Babu Pasi, village Gaura before the State Government requesting transfer of Investigation of Crime No.68/2002 and Crime No.79/2002 to the C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow Division on grounds of false implication by G.R.P. Police. The government accepted the request.

6. The C.B.C.I.D. investigated and on 17.3.2005 submitted a report concluding that both the cases are false, fabricated and recommended registration of an F.I.R. under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 218 I.P.C. against the G.R.P. Station Officer Shri Jamir Ahmad.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the investigation was transferred and a clean chit was given, the proceedings under Crime No.68/2002 continued based on the previous earlier chargesheet. Issuance of warrant is void ab initio and in the interest of justice, the entire proceedings must be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. states that the original chargesheet has been filed. The matter is pending trial. The warrant is validly issued and that investigation transferred etc. do not epso facto lead to quashing unless the court is satisfied.

9. The issue of considerations before this Court are as under :- 4 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013 a. Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in the facts of the case. b. If maintainable, whether the material on record justify exercise of inherent powers of his Court to quash the proceedings. c. Whether the fact of transferred investigating, a non bailable warrant and alleged clean chit by the supervisory investigation agency i.e. C.B.C.I.D. dis-entitle the respondents from proceeding with the original case.

10. On the question of maintainability, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice. However such power must be exercised sparingly and only when it is manifested that the allegations even if accepted in entirety, would not sustain the prosecution or there is clear evidence of abuse of process.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the original investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. and that C.B.C.I.D. submitted a report dated 17.3.2005 declaring the case false and recommended action against the investigating officer. If this is correct an final report was submitted by the C.B.C.I.D., then there is weight to the arguments that further proceedings would be an abuse of the process and warrant issued on that basis, may be void.

12. Having regard to the ongoing material on record, the court finds that:- 5 A482 No. - 6918 of 2013 a. the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. b. The petitioner had demonstrated a strong prima facie case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the subsequent submissions of a clean chit report by the CBCID, the subsistence of the non bailable warrant is legally unsustainable. c. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of process and injustice to the petitioner, the non bailable warrant issued against him and the entire pending proceedings in Case Crime No.68 of 2002 under Section 395/397 I.P.C. and Section 412 I.P.C. are hereby quashed. d. The respondents are directed to refrain from taking any further coercive measures against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Nevertheless, the State shall remain at liberty to undertake fresh investigation or proceedings, in accordance with law, in the event that new facts come to light.

13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of above. November 19, 2025 Shukla. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench