State v. Prem Narain Dubey and others U

1. Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shiv Prakash Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) to set aside the order dated 20.5.2019 and order dated 26.7.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate- I, Faizabad in Case No 2164 of 2004 State vs Prem Narain Dubey and others U/section 323, 352, 504 IPC as well as order dated 26.7.2023, passed in criminal Revision No 105 of 2019, passed by learned Addl. Session Judge/FTC-I Ayodhya. (as Contained in Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 to this petition) in the interest of Justice. ii) to Quash the chargesheet dt 11.12.2000 and entire consequential proceedings of Case No. 871 of 2019, Jag jeevan Prasad vs Prem Narain Dubey and others Carising out of NCR No-07 of 2000, P.S. Khandasa, district-Faizabad (now Ayodhya) U/section 323, 352, 504 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Ayodhya in the interest of Justice."

3. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant, are as under:- (i) Earlier challenging the proceedings of the Case No 2164 of 2004 (State vs. Prem Narain Dubey and others), under Sections- 323, 352, 504 IPC, which at the relevant point of time was pending in the court of Additional Magistrate, Faizabad (now Ayodhya), arising out of NCR No. 07 of 2000, Police Station- Khandasa, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya), the applicants approached this Court by means of an Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 659 of 2005 (Prem Narain Dubey And 2 Ors. vs. State Of U.P.And Another) (hereinafter referred to as the "petition") and the same was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2019, which reads as under:- "Heard Shri Jyotindra Mishra assisted by Shri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State, Shri Anil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. This application has been filed to quash the proceedings of case No. 2164 of 2009 (State versus Prem Narain Dubey and others), under Sections 323, 352, & 504 IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad arising out of NCR No. 7 of 2000, Police Station Khandra being time barred. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that cognizance in respect of incident of the year 2000 has been taken in the year 2004 after more than 3 years, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. He also contended that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were in army at the time of incident and taking of cognizance. In view of above, their case was triable by regular Court or by Court Martial at the option of the Commanding Officer of the Army as provided under Section 475 Cr.P.C. Provisions of this Section is also not complied with. In view of above, order for cognizance is bad in law and liable to be quashed alongwith entire proceedings of the criminal case. Par contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that while taking cognizance of the case, the Court below has exercised its powers for extension of time as provided under Section 473 Cr.P.C. So far contention of learned counsel for the revisionists for non compliance of provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. is concerned that may be complied with only after appearance of the accused persons before the Court below and apply for the same. In view of above, this application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, cognizance order dated 17.3.2004 (Annexure 12) has been passed after the period of three years without hearing the effected parties. As such, it is violative of natural justice. In view of above, cognizance order dated 17.3.2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for passing fresh order in respect of cognizance after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, if possible within 60 days after receipt of the record and appearance of the parties in the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 5.3.2019 as agreed by them and thereafter if need arising to do so, the Court below will also pass appropriate order in respect of compliance provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. With the above direction, this application is finally disposed of." (ii) It is to be noted that a perusal of above quoted order dated 07.02.2019 indicates that the proceedings in the said petition were assailed based upon Sections 468 and 475 Cr.P.C. Other available grounds were not taken in the petition or pressed before this Court. (iii) The Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate") thereafter passed the order dated 20.05.2019 in Case No 2164 of 2004 (State vs. Prem Narain Dubey and others), arising out of NCR No. 07 of 2000, Police Station- Khandasa, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya), which is under challenge in the instant application. (iv) The order dated 20.05.2019 passed by Magistrate was assailed by the applicants by means of Criminal Revision No. 105/2019 (Virendra Kumar and two others vs. State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed vide order impugned dated 26.07.2023 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Ayodhya/Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Revisional Court").

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant application has been filed before this Court challenging the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that sufficient reasons have not been recorded by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 regarding condoning the delay, as such, the same is liable to set- aside.

6. It is further stated that the Revisional Court while passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 also failed to take note of the fact that reasons to condone the delay have not been assigned by the Magistrate. Prayer is to cause interference in the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023.

7. On the contrary, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA opposing the instant application stated that latches explained in paragraph- 10 of this application appears to be vague.

8. It is further stated that sufficient reasons have been recorded by the Magistrate for condoning the delay and taking cognizance in the matter while passing the order impugned dated 20.05.2019 affirmed by the order impugned dated 26.07.2023. The prayer is to dismiss the instant application.

9. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

10. For coming to the conclusion, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 and also the observations made by the Revisional Court in the impugned order dated 26.07.2023.

11. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Magistrate is extracted hereunder:- " पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन ककयत। उक ममकदमम कक घटनत कदनतनककत 07/02/2000 हह। घटनत कक कवववचनत कवववचक दतरत ककयव जतनव कव पशचतत आररप नतत कव जनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 भत०दन०सन० कव अनतररत नयतयतलय मम पवकषत ककयत रयत। आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कव सतथ हल कवववचक दतरत कवलमब सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कत पतथरनत पत भल कदयत रयत। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय खणडपलठ लखनऊ दतरत पतथर/ अकभयमक कक यतकचकत पर समनवतई करतव हहयव कदनतनककत 07/02/2019 आदवकशत करतव हहए उभयपकर कर समननव कव पशचतत पकरण मम पसनजतन आदवश पतररत करनव हवतम कनदरकशत ककयत रयत। मतननलय उचचतम नयतयतलय दतरत कनकणरत कवधध वयवसथत जतपतनलय सतहह बनतम चनद शवखर मरहनतल 2007 CRIL. J. 4068 मम अवधतररत ककयत रयत हह कक कवधध कत समतनय कनयम हह कक अपरतध कभल मरतत नहह हह। कवववचक दतरत कबलमब सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कव कतरण पलकडत भररल नहह हररत और नत हल इसकत लतभ अकभयमक कर कदयत जतयवरत। उपररक कनणरय कवधध कर मतननलय सवरचच नयतयतलय कक सनवहधतकनक पलठ नव भल सरलत महथमयज बनतम इनसटलटमट आफ कतकडरयरवसकम लर कडधजज (2014) 2SCC62 मम पमष ककयत हह। पततवलल पर उपलबध समसत पपतर कत अवलरकन ककयत रयत। अवलरकन कव उपरतनत पकरण मम कवववचक दतरत कबलमब कर पतथरनत पत कव मतधयम सव पसतमत ककयत रयत हह, सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कत जर कतरण कदनतनक 14/01/2004 पयतरप हह। तदनमसतर पकरण मम कबलमब कर मकषरत ककयत जततत हह। पततवलल पररशललन सव यह भल सपष हरतत हह कक कवववचक दतरत कवववचनत उपरतनत अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 भत०दन०सन० मम आररप पत पवकषत ककयत रयत जर कक असनजवय अपरतध हह। धतरत-2 दन०प०सन० कव सपषलकरण मम यह पतकवधतन हह कक ऐसव ककसल मतमलव मम जर अनववषण कव पशचतत ककसल असनजवय अपरतध ककयत जतनत पकट करतल हह तर पमधलस दतरत दल रयल ररपरटर पररवतद समझत जतयवरत। पसतमत पकरण मम भल अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 कनवरहन मम पररवतद दतधखल ककयत रयत हह। समसत ररपरटर कव अवलरकन कव पशचतत पररवतदल एवन रवतहय कत बयतन लवखबद ककयत जतनत आवशयक नहह हह। अतत दतधखल आररप पत कर पररवतद कव रप मम मतनतव हहयव अनतररत धतरत-190 (1) ए कव अनतररत अकभयमकरण पवमनतयन ददबव, वलरवनद कम मतर ददबव कव कवरद पसनजतन धलयव जतनव कत आधतर पयतरप हह। जर कक लरक सववक दतरत अपनव पदवन कतरवयय कव भत०दन०सन० असनजवय अपरतध हह, कमल नरतयन ददबव, उप धतरत- (घ) आदवश एन०सल०आर० "सनखयत-07/2000 वतद सनखयत-2164/2004, अकभयमकरण पवमनरतयन ददबव, धलकपक कर आदवकशत ककयत जततत हह कक रधजसटर सनखयत 9 तथत आवशयक पववकष ककयत जतय। पततवलल वतसतव हतधजरल अकभयमकरण कदनतनक-12/06/2019 भत०दन०सन० कव अनतररत कवरद पसनजतन धलयत जततत हह। कतयतरलय पररवतद कव रप मम दजर ककयत जतय कर पवश हर।" अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 मम समबनधधत वतद कर, कमल नरतयन ददबव, वलरवनद कम मतर ददबव कव

12. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Revisional Court is also extracted hereunder:- "3. अवर नयतयतलय कक पततवलल कव अवलरकन सव पकरण कव तथय इस पकतर हह कक घटनत कदनतनक 07.02.2000 दतरत धतरत-155 (2) जरजलवन पसतद दतरत द०प०सन० कदनतनक 28.04.2000 बजव इस आशय कक पनजलकव त करतयव जतनव पर कक- " कवववचक दतरत आररप पत कवरद कनररतनलकततररण पवकषत ककयत रयत और सतथ हल सतथ कदनतनक बजव शतम कक हरनत दकशरत कर असनजवय अपरतध सन0-07/2000, समय 16:40 समय 04:00 कदनतनक 07.02.2000 कनररतनलकततररण कक मततत नव अनतप सनतप रतलल रमपत व घर मम लवटर रतलल रललज धलखकर फम कत करतल थल। ममनव एक बतर दवख धलयत तर ममनव ऐसल हरकत करनव सव मनत ककयत तर कनररतनलकततररण दतरत ममझव परसट ऑकफस कव सतमनव मतरत पलटत तथत रतलल रमपत दवकर भतर रयव" पर हहआ। उक कव कवववचनत हवतम कवपकल सन०.-2 कर नयतयतलय मम 19.01.2004 कदयत। कर कवववचनरपरतनत कर एक पतथरनतपत भल इस आशय कत कदयत रयत कक नयतयतलय कव आदवश सव कदनतनक अररप पत पवकषत ककयत रयत थत परनतम कवततधधकतरल कव कतयतरलय सव थतनव एतरतज मम वतपस हहआ थत रख रखतव मम कमल नहल रहत थत। पमनत कवववचनत कत आदवश कनररत ककयत रयत। दलरतन कवववचनत कतयतरलय कक सफतई कव दलरतन आररप पत उक पतथरनतपत पर नयतयतलय दतरत कदनतनक 17.03.2004 मय सल०डल० कव पतप हहआ हह धजसव पसतमत ककयत जत रहत हह। कर आदवश पररत ककयत रयत तथत कवलमब कत मषरण करतव हहयव अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कदनतनक 17.03.2004 कर हल कवरद कनररतनलकततररण दतरत धतरत-482 द०प०सन पसनजतन आदवश पतररत ककयत रयत। नयतयतलय कव उक पसनजतन कव कव अनतररत यतकचकत सन0-689/2005 मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय इलतहतबतद कक खणडपलठ लखनऊ कव समक यरधजत कक रयल धजसकत अनकतम कनसततरण कदनतनक 07.02.2019 कर मतननलय नयतयमदकतर दतरत इस कदशत कनदरश कव सतथ ककयव रयव पसनजतन आदवश कदनतनक 17.03.2004 कर खणणडत करतव हहयव पतररत ककयत रयत कक नयतयतलय दतरत उभयपक कर समनकर पसनजतन कव सनबनध मम कवधधसममत आदवश पतररत करम, द०प०सन० कव अनतररत अवर नयतयतलय सममकचत आदवश पतररत करव। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कव आदवश कदनतनक 07.02.2019 कव अनमपतलन मम उभयपक कर समनकर अवर नयतयतलय दतरत पशनरत आदवश कदनतनक 20.05.2019 कवरद कनररतनल यरधजत कक रयल हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत पतररत आदवश कवधध कक दकष मम करई आदवश नहह हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कवधधक मणसतषक कत पयरर नहह ककयत रयत हह तथत कवततधधकतर कत दमरपयरर ककयत रयत हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कनरसत ककयव जतनव कक पतथरनत कक रयल हह।" पतररत आदवश कदनतनककत 20.05.2019

11.12.2000 , सतथ हल सतथ धतरत-475 पतररत ककयत रयत धजसकव

13. Upon due consideration of the above quoted observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 and also the facts considered by the Revisional Court in paragraph- 3 of the impugned order dated 26.07.2023, quoted above, this Court is of the firm view that the Magistrate and Revisional Court have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The charge sheet was filed alongwith an application dated 19.01.2004 in this regard, which has not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the applicants' counsel. (ii) According to the aforesaid application, the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned proceeded in the matter in compliance of the order of the Magistrate concerned dated 11.12.2000 and thereafter, the charge sheet was submitted before the Circle Officer (C.O.) concerned, which was returned back to the concerned police station, where, it was missed and therefore, another order to investigate the matter was passed and during the investigation, said charge sheet was found alongwith a C.D. and thereafter the same was submitted before the Magistrate concerned on 17.03.2004. From these facts, this Court finds that the delay has been explained.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shiv Prakash Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) to set aside the order dated 20.5.2019 and order dated 26.7.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate- I, Faizabad in Case No 2164 of 2004 State vs Prem Narain Dubey and others U/section 323, 352, 504 IPC as well as order dated 26.7.2023, passed in criminal Revision No 105 of 2019, passed by learned Addl. Session Judge/FTC-I Ayodhya. (as Contained in Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 to this petition) in the interest of Justice. ii) to Quash the chargesheet dt 11.12.2000 and entire consequential proceedings of Case No. 871 of 2019, Jag jeevan Prasad vs Prem Narain Dubey and others Carising out of NCR No-07 of 2000, P.S. Khandasa, district-Faizabad (now Ayodhya) U/section 323, 352, 504 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Ayodhya in the interest of Justice."

3. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant, are as under:- (i) Earlier challenging the proceedings of the Case No 2164 of 2004 (State vs. Prem Narain Dubey and others), under Sections- 323, 352, 504 IPC, which at the relevant point of time was pending in the court of Additional Magistrate, Faizabad (now Ayodhya), arising out of NCR No. 07 of 2000, Police Station- Khandasa, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya), the applicants approached this Court by means of an Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 659 of 2005 (Prem Narain Dubey And 2 Ors. vs. State Of U.P.And Another) (hereinafter referred to as the "petition") and the same was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2019, which reads as under:- "Heard Shri Jyotindra Mishra assisted by Shri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State, Shri Anil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. This application has been filed to quash the proceedings of case No. 2164 of 2009 (State versus Prem Narain Dubey and others), under Sections 323, 352, & 504 IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad arising out of NCR No. 7 of 2000, Police Station Khandra being time barred. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that cognizance in respect of incident of the year 2000 has been taken in the year 2004 after more than 3 years, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. He also contended that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were in army at the time of incident and taking of cognizance. In view of above, their case was triable by regular Court or by Court Martial at the option of the Commanding Officer of the Army as provided under Section 475 Cr.P.C. Provisions of this Section is also not complied with. In view of above, order for cognizance is bad in law and liable to be quashed alongwith entire proceedings of the criminal case. Par contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that while taking cognizance of the case, the Court below has exercised its powers for extension of time as provided under Section 473 Cr.P.C. So far contention of learned counsel for the revisionists for non compliance of provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. is concerned that may be complied with only after appearance of the accused persons before the Court below and apply for the same. In view of above, this application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, cognizance order dated 17.3.2004 (Annexure 12) has been passed after the period of three years without hearing the effected parties. As such, it is violative of natural justice. In view of above, cognizance order dated 17.3.2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for passing fresh order in respect of cognizance after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, if possible within 60 days after receipt of the record and appearance of the parties in the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 5.3.2019 as agreed by them and thereafter if need arising to do so, the Court below will also pass appropriate order in respect of compliance provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. With the above direction, this application is finally disposed of." (ii) It is to be noted that a perusal of above quoted order dated 07.02.2019 indicates that the proceedings in the said petition were assailed based upon Sections 468 and 475 Cr.P.C. Other available grounds were not taken in the petition or pressed before this Court. (iii) The Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate") thereafter passed the order dated 20.05.2019 in Case No 2164 of 2004 (State vs. Prem Narain Dubey and others), arising out of NCR No. 07 of 2000, Police Station- Khandasa, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya), which is under challenge in the instant application. (iv) The order dated 20.05.2019 passed by Magistrate was assailed by the applicants by means of Criminal Revision No. 105/2019 (Virendra Kumar and two others vs. State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed vide order impugned dated 26.07.2023 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Ayodhya/Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Revisional Court").

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant application has been filed before this Court challenging the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that sufficient reasons have not been recorded by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 regarding condoning the delay, as such, the same is liable to set- aside.

6. It is further stated that the Revisional Court while passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 also failed to take note of the fact that reasons to condone the delay have not been assigned by the Magistrate. Prayer is to cause interference in the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023.

7. On the contrary, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA opposing the instant application stated that latches explained in paragraph- 10 of this application appears to be vague.

8. It is further stated that sufficient reasons have been recorded by the Magistrate for condoning the delay and taking cognizance in the matter while passing the order impugned dated 20.05.2019 affirmed by the order impugned dated 26.07.2023. The prayer is to dismiss the instant application.

9. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

10. For coming to the conclusion, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 and also the observations made by the Revisional Court in the impugned order dated 26.07.2023.

11. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Magistrate is extracted hereunder:- " पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन ककयत। उक ममकदमम कक घटनत कदनतनककत 07/02/2000 हह। घटनत कक कवववचनत कवववचक दतरत ककयव जतनव कव पशचतत आररप नतत कव जनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 भत०दन०सन० कव अनतररत नयतयतलय मम पवकषत ककयत रयत। आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कव सतथ हल कवववचक दतरत कवलमब सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कत पतथरनत पत भल कदयत रयत। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय खणडपलठ लखनऊ दतरत पतथर/ अकभयमक कक यतकचकत पर समनवतई करतव हहयव कदनतनककत 07/02/2019 आदवकशत करतव हहए उभयपकर कर समननव कव पशचतत पकरण मम पसनजतन आदवश पतररत करनव हवतम कनदरकशत ककयत रयत। मतननलय उचचतम नयतयतलय दतरत कनकणरत कवधध वयवसथत जतपतनलय सतहह बनतम चनद शवखर मरहनतल 2007 CRIL. J. 4068 मम अवधतररत ककयत रयत हह कक कवधध कत समतनय कनयम हह कक अपरतध कभल मरतत नहह हह। कवववचक दतरत कबलमब सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कव कतरण पलकडत भररल नहह हररत और नत हल इसकत लतभ अकभयमक कर कदयत जतयवरत। उपररक कनणरय कवधध कर मतननलय सवरचच नयतयतलय कक सनवहधतकनक पलठ नव भल सरलत महथमयज बनतम इनसटलटमट आफ कतकडरयरवसकम लर कडधजज (2014) 2SCC62 मम पमष ककयत हह। पततवलल पर उपलबध समसत पपतर कत अवलरकन ककयत रयत। अवलरकन कव उपरतनत पकरण मम कवववचक दतरत कबलमब कर पतथरनत पत कव मतधयम सव पसतमत ककयत रयत हह, सव आररप पत पवकषत ककयव जतनव कत जर कतरण कदनतनक 14/01/2004 पयतरप हह। तदनमसतर पकरण मम कबलमब कर मकषरत ककयत जततत हह। पततवलल पररशललन सव यह भल सपष हरतत हह कक कवववचक दतरत कवववचनत उपरतनत अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 भत०दन०सन० मम आररप पत पवकषत ककयत रयत जर कक असनजवय अपरतध हह। धतरत-2 दन०प०सन० कव सपषलकरण मम यह पतकवधतन हह कक ऐसव ककसल मतमलव मम जर अनववषण कव पशचतत ककसल असनजवय अपरतध ककयत जतनत पकट करतल हह तर पमधलस दतरत दल रयल ररपरटर पररवतद समझत जतयवरत। पसतमत पकरण मम भल अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 कनवरहन मम पररवतद दतधखल ककयत रयत हह। समसत ररपरटर कव अवलरकन कव पशचतत पररवतदल एवन रवतहय कत बयतन लवखबद ककयत जतनत आवशयक नहह हह। अतत दतधखल आररप पत कर पररवतद कव रप मम मतनतव हहयव अनतररत धतरत-190 (1) ए कव अनतररत अकभयमकरण पवमनतयन ददबव, वलरवनद कम मतर ददबव कव कवरद पसनजतन धलयव जतनव कत आधतर पयतरप हह। जर कक लरक सववक दतरत अपनव पदवन कतरवयय कव भत०दन०सन० असनजवय अपरतध हह, कमल नरतयन ददबव, उप धतरत- (घ) आदवश एन०सल०आर० "सनखयत-07/2000 वतद सनखयत-2164/2004, अकभयमकरण पवमनरतयन ददबव, धलकपक कर आदवकशत ककयत जततत हह कक रधजसटर सनखयत 9 तथत आवशयक पववकष ककयत जतय। पततवलल वतसतव हतधजरल अकभयमकरण कदनतनक-12/06/2019 भत०दन०सन० कव अनतररत कवरद पसनजतन धलयत जततत हह। कतयतरलय पररवतद कव रप मम दजर ककयत जतय कर पवश हर।" अनतररत धतरत-352, 323, 504 मम समबनधधत वतद कर, कमल नरतयन ददबव, वलरवनद कम मतर ददबव कव

12. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Revisional Court is also extracted hereunder:- "3. अवर नयतयतलय कक पततवलल कव अवलरकन सव पकरण कव तथय इस पकतर हह कक घटनत कदनतनक 07.02.2000 दतरत धतरत-155 (2) जरजलवन पसतद दतरत द०प०सन० कदनतनक 28.04.2000 बजव इस आशय कक पनजलकव त करतयव जतनव पर कक- " कवववचक दतरत आररप पत कवरद कनररतनलकततररण पवकषत ककयत रयत और सतथ हल सतथ कदनतनक बजव शतम कक हरनत दकशरत कर असनजवय अपरतध सन0-07/2000, समय 16:40 समय 04:00 कदनतनक 07.02.2000 कनररतनलकततररण कक मततत नव अनतप सनतप रतलल रमपत व घर मम लवटर रतलल रललज धलखकर फम कत करतल थल। ममनव एक बतर दवख धलयत तर ममनव ऐसल हरकत करनव सव मनत ककयत तर कनररतनलकततररण दतरत ममझव परसट ऑकफस कव सतमनव मतरत पलटत तथत रतलल रमपत दवकर भतर रयव" पर हहआ। उक कव कवववचनत हवतम कवपकल सन०.-2 कर नयतयतलय मम 19.01.2004 कदयत। कर कवववचनरपरतनत कर एक पतथरनतपत भल इस आशय कत कदयत रयत कक नयतयतलय कव आदवश सव कदनतनक अररप पत पवकषत ककयत रयत थत परनतम कवततधधकतरल कव कतयतरलय सव थतनव एतरतज मम वतपस हहआ थत रख रखतव मम कमल नहल रहत थत। पमनत कवववचनत कत आदवश कनररत ककयत रयत। दलरतन कवववचनत कतयतरलय कक सफतई कव दलरतन आररप पत उक पतथरनतपत पर नयतयतलय दतरत कदनतनक 17.03.2004 मय सल०डल० कव पतप हहआ हह धजसव पसतमत ककयत जत रहत हह। कर आदवश पररत ककयत रयत तथत कवलमब कत मषरण करतव हहयव अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कदनतनक 17.03.2004 कर हल कवरद कनररतनलकततररण दतरत धतरत-482 द०प०सन पसनजतन आदवश पतररत ककयत रयत। नयतयतलय कव उक पसनजतन कव कव अनतररत यतकचकत सन0-689/2005 मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय इलतहतबतद कक खणडपलठ लखनऊ कव समक यरधजत कक रयल धजसकत अनकतम कनसततरण कदनतनक 07.02.2019 कर मतननलय नयतयमदकतर दतरत इस कदशत कनदरश कव सतथ ककयव रयव पसनजतन आदवश कदनतनक 17.03.2004 कर खणणडत करतव हहयव पतररत ककयत रयत कक नयतयतलय दतरत उभयपक कर समनकर पसनजतन कव सनबनध मम कवधधसममत आदवश पतररत करम, द०प०सन० कव अनतररत अवर नयतयतलय सममकचत आदवश पतररत करव। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कव आदवश कदनतनक 07.02.2019 कव अनमपतलन मम उभयपक कर समनकर अवर नयतयतलय दतरत पशनरत आदवश कदनतनक 20.05.2019 कवरद कनररतनल यरधजत कक रयल हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत पतररत आदवश कवधध कक दकष मम करई आदवश नहह हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कवधधक मणसतषक कत पयरर नहह ककयत रयत हह तथत कवततधधकतर कत दमरपयरर ककयत रयत हह। अवर नयतयतलय दतरत कनरसत ककयव जतनव कक पतथरनत कक रयल हह।" पतररत आदवश कदनतनककत 20.05.2019

11.12.2000 , सतथ हल सतथ धतरत-475 पतररत ककयत रयत धजसकव

13. Upon due consideration of the above quoted observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 and also the facts considered by the Revisional Court in paragraph- 3 of the impugned order dated 26.07.2023, quoted above, this Court is of the firm view that the Magistrate and Revisional Court have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders dated 20.05.2019 and 26.07.2023. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The charge sheet was filed alongwith an application dated 19.01.2004 in this regard, which has not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the applicants' counsel. (ii) According to the aforesaid application, the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned proceeded in the matter in compliance of the order of the Magistrate concerned dated 11.12.2000 and thereafter, the charge sheet was submitted before the Circle Officer (C.O.) concerned, which was returned back to the concerned police station, where, it was missed and therefore, another order to investigate the matter was passed and during the investigation, said charge sheet was found alongwith a C.D. and thereafter the same was submitted before the Magistrate concerned on 17.03.2004. From these facts, this Court finds that the delay has been explained.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench