Heard learned counsel for the v. K. Singh, learned Government

learned Government Advocate and Shri Deshraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Garima Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the wife of the deceased.

3. In pursuance of earlier order, the relevant records are produced before this court by Shri Kripa Shankar Yadav, Joint Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

4. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30/06/2025 passed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli in Case No. 728/ 2006, arising out of Crime No. 61 A/ 2005, under section- 147/148/149/302/ 435 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Dalmau, District- Raibareli 2 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 (State Versus Rajjan@ Triveni Prasad and others) which has been passed without applying judicial mind and also without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on the record, in the interest of Justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 728/2006, arising out of Crime No. 61 A/ 2005, under section-147/148/149/302/435 of LP.C. registered at Police Station- Dalmau, District- Raibareli pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli (State Versus Rajjan Triveni Prasad and others), during pendency of the present petition, in the interest of justice."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident was taken place in the year 2005 and in the said incident, two persons were died. From the side of the applicant, one Ramesh was killed by the members of other side, as a result, some agitation took place and one Mohammad Naem was killed by the mob. As a result, in relation to the killing of Ramesh, the FIR No. 61 of 2005 under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli was lodged on 19.08.2005 on the written complaint of Manoj Kumar Sonkar against Bacche Ali son of Ismail Qasai, Alam son of Ismail Qasai, Raju son of Rahim Bux Qasai, Ismail son of unknown and Naem son of unknown with the allegation that on 19.08.2005 at about 4:00 p.m., some quarrel took place between Manoj Kumar Sonkar and Bacche Ali and thereafter he went to purchase some vegetables along with his cousin brother Ramesh Kumar son of Jamuna Prasad and when he reached at the house of Saharyar near Miyan Tola, at the same time Bacche Ali armed with knife and Alam armed with gun, both sons of Israel Qasai, Raju son of Rahim Bux Qasai, Ismail and Naem sons of unknown resident of Miyan Tola and others armed with danda reached there and started abusing by saying kill him, at the same time, Alam opened the 3 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 fire, which hit Ramesh, as a result, he fell down on the spot and after hearing the noise of fire, uncle of Manoj Sonkar namely Saryu Prasad Sonkar, Pawan Kumar and hundreds of people reached on the spot and they tried to brought Ramesh to the hospital and accused persons ran away. Due to said fire arm injury, he died in the way when he was being brought to the hospital.

6. Thereafter at about 5:00 a.m. on 09.08.2005, in retaliation to the aforesaid incident Mohammed Naem was caught by the mob and he was beaten brutally and also blazed with the fire and in the said fire, some shops were also blazed by Akbar, Aabid, Khurshid Mullu and the applicant was charge-sheeted in the subsequent FIR 61A under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 435 IPC, in which chargesheet was submitted against 12 persons. The applicant is a practicing advocate and he was not present at the place of incident. Thereafter, the State Government considered the case of applicant and passed an order under Section 321 CrPC, which was placed before the learned magistrate and at this stage, nine witnesses of fact have already been examined in the present case and all the witnesses have categorically denied the prosecution story namely P.W. 1 Mohammad Yunus (Informant), P.W. 2 Sameem Bano, P.W. 3 Sabir Ali, P.W. 4 Rukhsaar, P.W. 5, Jaan Mohammed, P.W. 6 Mohammed Israel, P.W. 7 Noor Jahan, P.W. 8 Babyjaan, and P.W. 9 Sami. They also denied the involvement of Rajjan @ Triveni Prasad, Saryu Prasad, Narvada Prasad @ Ramu (applicant), Prabhu Dayal, Bacholey @ Ghanshyam and Hansa son of Shambhu.

7. He further submitted that the proper application under Section 321 CrPC was moved before the learned magistrate but the same was rejected in the most mechanical manner without considering this fact that the trial of case in question is futile one as nine witness of fact have denied the prosecution story including the involvement of accused persons as well as the applicant. Therefore, trial of case in question is a futile one. In 4 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the application under Section 321 CrPC was to be allowed and, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

8. Dr. V. K. Singh, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant but could not dispute this fact that the State Government passed an order for withdrawal of the prosecution.

9. Mr. Abhinav Pankaj, learned counsel for the mother of the informant of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) also admitted that he is appearing for the mother of the deceased Ramesh and the trial of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) is going on against the accused persons and he also submitted that as all the witnesses of fact of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) have not supported the prosecution and in case, the case of applicant is withdrawn, then it will hamper the trial of Case Crime No. 61A of 2005 related to the killing of Ramesh but he does not dispute this fact that all the nine witnesses of fact in the present case have not supported prosecution version and categorically denied the involvement of accused persons including the applicant.

10. Ms. Garima Dwivedi appearing for the victim of the present case opposed the prayer of the applicant but could not dispute this fact that all the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution version.

11. Considering the submission(s) of learner counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application as well as the other relevant documents including the impugned order and the record placed by Mr. Kripa Shankar Yadav, Law Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, it is evident that the FIR of case in question was lodged in relation to the killing of Mohd. Naem and chargesheet was submitted against seven persons including the applicant and the proceeding of trial in relation to the petitioner was stayed and 5 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 the trial was proceeded for rest of accused and nine witnesses of fact have already been examined and they categorically denied the prosecution story coupled with the fact that involvement of the accused persons including the applicant, which is also admitted in the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned court below by which the request for withdrawal of prosecution was denied. As nine witnesses of fact, who have not supported the prosecution story. Now only formal witnesses are to be examined.

12. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the order passed by learned magistrate under Section 321 CrPC is upheld, then the trial against the applicant is a futile one as in the order it is observed that witnesses of fact have categorically stated that no case is made out against the accused persons including the applicant. Therefore, the trial of case in question would be futile. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and the application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the matter is remanded back for directing the court below to take fresh decision on the application dated 30.06.2011 under Section 321 CrPC dated within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

13. Original record is returned to the officer present in this Court. November 10, 2025 Raj (Rajeev Singh,J.) RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

learned Government Advocate and Shri Deshraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Garima Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the wife of the deceased.

3. In pursuance of earlier order, the relevant records are produced before this court by Shri Kripa Shankar Yadav, Joint Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

4. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30/06/2025 passed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli in Case No. 728/ 2006, arising out of Crime No. 61 A/ 2005, under section- 147/148/149/302/ 435 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Dalmau, District- Raibareli 2 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 (State Versus Rajjan@ Triveni Prasad and others) which has been passed without applying judicial mind and also without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on the record, in the interest of Justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 728/2006, arising out of Crime No. 61 A/ 2005, under section-147/148/149/302/435 of LP.C. registered at Police Station- Dalmau, District- Raibareli pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli (State Versus Rajjan Triveni Prasad and others), during pendency of the present petition, in the interest of justice."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident was taken place in the year 2005 and in the said incident, two persons were died. From the side of the applicant, one Ramesh was killed by the members of other side, as a result, some agitation took place and one Mohammad Naem was killed by the mob. As a result, in relation to the killing of Ramesh, the FIR No. 61 of 2005 under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli was lodged on 19.08.2005 on the written complaint of Manoj Kumar Sonkar against Bacche Ali son of Ismail Qasai, Alam son of Ismail Qasai, Raju son of Rahim Bux Qasai, Ismail son of unknown and Naem son of unknown with the allegation that on 19.08.2005 at about 4:00 p.m., some quarrel took place between Manoj Kumar Sonkar and Bacche Ali and thereafter he went to purchase some vegetables along with his cousin brother Ramesh Kumar son of Jamuna Prasad and when he reached at the house of Saharyar near Miyan Tola, at the same time Bacche Ali armed with knife and Alam armed with gun, both sons of Israel Qasai, Raju son of Rahim Bux Qasai, Ismail and Naem sons of unknown resident of Miyan Tola and others armed with danda reached there and started abusing by saying kill him, at the same time, Alam opened the 3 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 fire, which hit Ramesh, as a result, he fell down on the spot and after hearing the noise of fire, uncle of Manoj Sonkar namely Saryu Prasad Sonkar, Pawan Kumar and hundreds of people reached on the spot and they tried to brought Ramesh to the hospital and accused persons ran away. Due to said fire arm injury, he died in the way when he was being brought to the hospital.

6. Thereafter at about 5:00 a.m. on 09.08.2005, in retaliation to the aforesaid incident Mohammed Naem was caught by the mob and he was beaten brutally and also blazed with the fire and in the said fire, some shops were also blazed by Akbar, Aabid, Khurshid Mullu and the applicant was charge-sheeted in the subsequent FIR 61A under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 435 IPC, in which chargesheet was submitted against 12 persons. The applicant is a practicing advocate and he was not present at the place of incident. Thereafter, the State Government considered the case of applicant and passed an order under Section 321 CrPC, which was placed before the learned magistrate and at this stage, nine witnesses of fact have already been examined in the present case and all the witnesses have categorically denied the prosecution story namely P.W. 1 Mohammad Yunus (Informant), P.W. 2 Sameem Bano, P.W. 3 Sabir Ali, P.W. 4 Rukhsaar, P.W. 5, Jaan Mohammed, P.W. 6 Mohammed Israel, P.W. 7 Noor Jahan, P.W. 8 Babyjaan, and P.W. 9 Sami. They also denied the involvement of Rajjan @ Triveni Prasad, Saryu Prasad, Narvada Prasad @ Ramu (applicant), Prabhu Dayal, Bacholey @ Ghanshyam and Hansa son of Shambhu.

7. He further submitted that the proper application under Section 321 CrPC was moved before the learned magistrate but the same was rejected in the most mechanical manner without considering this fact that the trial of case in question is futile one as nine witness of fact have denied the prosecution story including the involvement of accused persons as well as the applicant. Therefore, trial of case in question is a futile one. In 4 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the application under Section 321 CrPC was to be allowed and, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

8. Dr. V. K. Singh, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant but could not dispute this fact that the State Government passed an order for withdrawal of the prosecution.

9. Mr. Abhinav Pankaj, learned counsel for the mother of the informant of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) also admitted that he is appearing for the mother of the deceased Ramesh and the trial of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) is going on against the accused persons and he also submitted that as all the witnesses of fact of Case Crime No. 61 of 2005 (Supra) have not supported the prosecution and in case, the case of applicant is withdrawn, then it will hamper the trial of Case Crime No. 61A of 2005 related to the killing of Ramesh but he does not dispute this fact that all the nine witnesses of fact in the present case have not supported prosecution version and categorically denied the involvement of accused persons including the applicant.

10. Ms. Garima Dwivedi appearing for the victim of the present case opposed the prayer of the applicant but could not dispute this fact that all the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution version.

11. Considering the submission(s) of learner counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application as well as the other relevant documents including the impugned order and the record placed by Mr. Kripa Shankar Yadav, Law Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, it is evident that the FIR of case in question was lodged in relation to the killing of Mohd. Naem and chargesheet was submitted against seven persons including the applicant and the proceeding of trial in relation to the petitioner was stayed and 5 A482 No. 6400 of 2025 the trial was proceeded for rest of accused and nine witnesses of fact have already been examined and they categorically denied the prosecution story coupled with the fact that involvement of the accused persons including the applicant, which is also admitted in the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned court below by which the request for withdrawal of prosecution was denied. As nine witnesses of fact, who have not supported the prosecution story. Now only formal witnesses are to be examined.

12. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the order passed by learned magistrate under Section 321 CrPC is upheld, then the trial against the applicant is a futile one as in the order it is observed that witnesses of fact have categorically stated that no case is made out against the accused persons including the applicant. Therefore, the trial of case in question would be futile. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and the application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the matter is remanded back for directing the court below to take fresh decision on the application dated 30.06.2011 under Section 321 CrPC dated within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

13. Original record is returned to the officer present in this Court. November 10, 2025 Raj (Rajeev Singh,J.) RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench