Hajari Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

1. Heard Sri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashutosh Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. This Court had passed following order on 06.11.2025:- "1Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashutosh Mishra,Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.5 is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to serve a copy of the petition on learned counsel for the respondent no.5 during course of the day.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of wrong and concocted story and levelling wrong section. He further submits that since the offences under the impugned F.I.R. carry punishment less than 7 years, therefore, the notice was issued without mentioning date,time and place by the SHO of the police station instead of the Investigating Officer, whereas he could not have issued the notice because he is personally interested in the matter, as he is influenced by one of the persons residing in the society who is his old friend. He further submits that the notice was also not served on the petitioners and was pasted and for the said purpose, several police personnels had come, which was not required for service of the said 2 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 notice.

4. Learned AGA, on the basis of instructions received from Sri Prateek Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, submits that after recording statement of the petitioners on

01.11.2025, the charge sheet has been forwarded and grievance, if any, may be raised before the authority concerned, where the charge sheet is pending. However, he seeks time to seek instructions as to how the notice was issued without mentioning date, time and place and the statement of the petitioners was recorded on 01.11.2025 when no such notice was given to the petitioners. He shall also seek instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow regarding violation of the provisions made under Section 35(3) of the BNS and the circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Lucknow by the person who has issued the notice, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure no.11 to the petition and if it has not been issued by S.H.O., then what he has done for compliance of above.

5. As prayed by learned AGA, three days time is granted to seek instructions.

6. List on 11.11.2025 as fresh showing the name of Sri Ashutosh Mishra,Advocate as counsel for the respondent in the cause list."

3. Thereafter, the following order was passed on 13.11.2025:- "1. Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions dated 12.11.2025 received from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, submits that inadvertently notice was issued under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 without time and place and a direction has been issued to all concerned to issue notice in compliance of the Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 and Circulars issued by the D.G.P., Lucknow. A copy of the said instructions is taken on record. In regard to the statement recorded on

01.11.2025 and the charge sheet filed thereafter, he submits that he could not get the complete instructions.

2. Per contra, Sri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per instructions, the petitioner No.1; Hazari Singh was 3 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 not in town on the said date as he had left for District Mau in the said morning and came back on 03.11.2025 and his statement was not recorded.

3. At this stage, learned A.G.A., on the basis of Case Diary, submits that the statements of the petitioners were recorded telephonically from their mobile numbers i.e. Mobile No. 9415274964 of the petitioner No.1; Hazari Singh and Mobile No.9792435888 of the petitioner No.2; Sunil Kumar Agnihotri @ Akash Agnihotri.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per instructions, no such statements were recorded through mobile phones and there was no conversation from the petitioners from 01.11.2025 up to 11.11.2025.

5. In view of above, learned A.G.A. is directed to seek complete instructions and inform as to how and under which provision, the statements were recorded telephonically and he shall also produce the CDR of the said mobile numbers. He shall seek instructions in this regard from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, who shall provide the same after verifying the facts.

6. Learned A.G.A. shall also seek instructions in regard to previous order passed by this Court regarding issuance of notice by the Station House Officer instead of the Investigating Officer.

7. As prayed by learned A.G.A., list on 15.11.2025 in terms of earlier order. "

4. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions in pursuance of the aforesaid order provided by Sri Prateek Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector / Investigating Officer, who is present in person, submits that statements of the petitioners were recorded on 31.10.2025 after giving notice to them under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023, which were duly received by them. He further submits that the statements were recorded outside the Gate of Omaxe Building in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow and not on telephone, which was inadvertently informed on the last date. He further submits that the Case Diary regarding recording of the statements of the petitioners was recorded and uploaded on 01.11.2025. He further submits that after 4 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 recording of the statements of the petitioners and considering the material and evidence collected during investigation, charge sheet has been forwarded the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned on

01.11.2025. Thus, he submits that in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they may approach the Supervisory Authority with a representation, which shall be considered by him while taking decision on the charge sheet forwarded by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the submissions of learned A.G.A. He submits that no notice was served on the petitioners before recording the statements allegedly on 31.10.2025 and their statements have not been recorded but the same have been recorded by the Investigating Officer on his own. However, he submits that the petitioners will move a representation before the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned raising their grievance, which may be directed to be considered by him. To which, there is no objection by the learned A.G.A.

6. In view of above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned with material, if any. In case such a representation is moved within a week from today, the same shall be considered by the Supervisory Authority while taking decision on the Charge Sheet forwarded to him. November 15, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashutosh Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. This Court had passed following order on 06.11.2025:- "1Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashutosh Mishra,Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.5 is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to serve a copy of the petition on learned counsel for the respondent no.5 during course of the day.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of wrong and concocted story and levelling wrong section. He further submits that since the offences under the impugned F.I.R. carry punishment less than 7 years, therefore, the notice was issued without mentioning date,time and place by the SHO of the police station instead of the Investigating Officer, whereas he could not have issued the notice because he is personally interested in the matter, as he is influenced by one of the persons residing in the society who is his old friend. He further submits that the notice was also not served on the petitioners and was pasted and for the said purpose, several police personnels had come, which was not required for service of the said 2 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 notice.

4. Learned AGA, on the basis of instructions received from Sri Prateek Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, submits that after recording statement of the petitioners on

01.11.2025, the charge sheet has been forwarded and grievance, if any, may be raised before the authority concerned, where the charge sheet is pending. However, he seeks time to seek instructions as to how the notice was issued without mentioning date, time and place and the statement of the petitioners was recorded on 01.11.2025 when no such notice was given to the petitioners. He shall also seek instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow regarding violation of the provisions made under Section 35(3) of the BNS and the circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Lucknow by the person who has issued the notice, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure no.11 to the petition and if it has not been issued by S.H.O., then what he has done for compliance of above.

5. As prayed by learned AGA, three days time is granted to seek instructions.

6. List on 11.11.2025 as fresh showing the name of Sri Ashutosh Mishra,Advocate as counsel for the respondent in the cause list."

3. Thereafter, the following order was passed on 13.11.2025:- "1. Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions dated 12.11.2025 received from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, submits that inadvertently notice was issued under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 without time and place and a direction has been issued to all concerned to issue notice in compliance of the Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 and Circulars issued by the D.G.P., Lucknow. A copy of the said instructions is taken on record. In regard to the statement recorded on

01.11.2025 and the charge sheet filed thereafter, he submits that he could not get the complete instructions.

2. Per contra, Sri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per instructions, the petitioner No.1; Hazari Singh was 3 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 not in town on the said date as he had left for District Mau in the said morning and came back on 03.11.2025 and his statement was not recorded.

3. At this stage, learned A.G.A., on the basis of Case Diary, submits that the statements of the petitioners were recorded telephonically from their mobile numbers i.e. Mobile No. 9415274964 of the petitioner No.1; Hazari Singh and Mobile No.9792435888 of the petitioner No.2; Sunil Kumar Agnihotri @ Akash Agnihotri.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per instructions, no such statements were recorded through mobile phones and there was no conversation from the petitioners from 01.11.2025 up to 11.11.2025.

5. In view of above, learned A.G.A. is directed to seek complete instructions and inform as to how and under which provision, the statements were recorded telephonically and he shall also produce the CDR of the said mobile numbers. He shall seek instructions in this regard from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, who shall provide the same after verifying the facts.

6. Learned A.G.A. shall also seek instructions in regard to previous order passed by this Court regarding issuance of notice by the Station House Officer instead of the Investigating Officer.

7. As prayed by learned A.G.A., list on 15.11.2025 in terms of earlier order. "

4. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions in pursuance of the aforesaid order provided by Sri Prateek Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector / Investigating Officer, who is present in person, submits that statements of the petitioners were recorded on 31.10.2025 after giving notice to them under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S., 2023, which were duly received by them. He further submits that the statements were recorded outside the Gate of Omaxe Building in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow and not on telephone, which was inadvertently informed on the last date. He further submits that the Case Diary regarding recording of the statements of the petitioners was recorded and uploaded on 01.11.2025. He further submits that after 4 CRLP No. 10108 of 2025 recording of the statements of the petitioners and considering the material and evidence collected during investigation, charge sheet has been forwarded the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned on

01.11.2025. Thus, he submits that in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they may approach the Supervisory Authority with a representation, which shall be considered by him while taking decision on the charge sheet forwarded by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the submissions of learned A.G.A. He submits that no notice was served on the petitioners before recording the statements allegedly on 31.10.2025 and their statements have not been recorded but the same have been recorded by the Investigating Officer on his own. However, he submits that the petitioners will move a representation before the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned raising their grievance, which may be directed to be considered by him. To which, there is no objection by the learned A.G.A.

6. In view of above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the Supervisory Authority / A.C.P. concerned with material, if any. In case such a representation is moved within a week from today, the same shall be considered by the Supervisory Authority while taking decision on the Charge Sheet forwarded to him. November 15, 2025 Saurabh (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench