# Alka Ray v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 652
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-22
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 7251 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alka-ray-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-50695
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
-
Section
227
-
discharge
application , Section 228 - framing of
Charge , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 , 471, 120-B,
177
and
506,

the
Criminal
Law
(Amendment) Act, 1932 - Section 7 , while
considering an application for discharge of
the accused under Section 227 of the
Code, the Court has to form a definite
opinion, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused
- Once the facts and ingredients of the
Section exist, the court would presume
that there is ground to proceed against
the
accused
and
frame
the
charge
accordingly and the Court would not
8 All. Alka Ray Vs. State of U.P.
653
doubt the case of the prosecution - limited
scope of scrutiny at the time of discharge
and framing of charges.(Para - 23,25)

Allegation in F.I.R. - registration of ambulance
done on basis of forged documents - Applicant
charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy -
for commission of the offences alleged -
Application for discharge rejected - framing
charges against - copy of application not
brought on record.(Para - 3,5)

HELD:-Upon consideration of the record of the
case, there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the applicant. Truth of the matter will
come out when evidence is led during the
trial.(Para - 26)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pratapsing Mohansing Pardeshi, (1995)
6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. v.
Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel, (1997) 7 SCC
300; Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and
Virendra Kashinath v. Vinayak N. Joshi,
AIR 1999 SC 162.

24.

Once
the
Department
of
Archaeology and learned Senior Counsel
representing the Department have made
their stand clear that no damage is going to
be caused to the property in question, this
Court has no reason to doubt their
statements and most importantly, the
affidavit filed by the officer of the ASI
explaining the circumstances. Further, it is
settled proposition of law that issue of a
Commission, at this stage, is permissible.
In the opinion of the Court, the scientific
survey/investigation proposed to be carried
out by the Commission, is necessary in the
interest of justice and shall benefit the
plaintiffs and defendants alike and come in
aid of the trial court to arrive at a just
decision. The law laid down and discussed
above, make it clear that the Court below
was justified in passing the impugned
order. The present petition lacks substance
and is liable to be dismissed.

25. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated. The order dated 21.7.2023 passed by
the District Judge, Varanasi is restored and the
parties are to comply the said order, subject to
the
observations
made
by
this
Court
hereinabove and the contents of the affidavit
filed on behalf of the ASI before this Court.

26. However, dismissal of this writ
petition does not affect the right of the
parties to the Suit to remain present at the
time of scientific investigation to be made
by the ASI.

27. As the proceeding of Suit has
been lingering on for long, it would be
appropriate to observe that the Court
concerned shall make all endeavour to
conclude the proceedings expeditiously,
without granting unnecessary adjournments
to either of the parties by giving short
dates, keeping in view of the provisions
contained in Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 652
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 7251 of 2023

Alka Ray ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
-
Section
227
-
discharge
application , Section 228 - framing of
Charge , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 , 471, 120-B,
177
and
506,

the
Criminal
Law
(Amendment) Act, 1932 - Section 7 , while
considering an application for discharge of
the accused under Section 227 of the
Code, the Court has to form a definite
opinion, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused
- Once the facts and ingredients of the
Section exist, the court would presume
that there is ground to proceed against
the
accused
and
frame
the
charge
accordingly and the Court would not
8 All. Alka Ray Vs. State of U.P.
653
doubt the case of the prosecution - limited
scope of scrutiny at the time of discharge
and framing of charges.(Para - 23,25)

Allegation in F.I.R. - registration of ambulance
done on basis of forged documents - Applicant
charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy -
for commission of the offences alleged -
Application for discharge rejected - framing
charges against - copy of application not
brought on record.(Para - 3,5)

HELD:-Upon consideration of the record of the
case, there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the applicant. Truth of the matter will
come out when evidence is led during the
trial.(Para - 26)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of A.P. Vs Ramchandra Rabidas, (2019)
10 SCC 75

2. Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7
SCC 581

3. Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh, (2008)
14 SCC 504,

4. Bhawna Bai Vs Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC
217,

5. Rajbir Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51,

6. Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs Mohd. Maqbool
Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657,

7. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC
317,

8. St. of Maha. Vs Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298,

9. Bholu Ram Vs St. of Punj., (2008) 9 SCC 140,

10. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Akhil Sharda & ors.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 820,

11. Monica Bedi Vs St. of A.P., (2011) 1 SCC
284

12. St. of U.P. Vs Ranjit Singh, (1999) 2 SCC
617

13. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard the arguments of Sri Pranjal
Krishna, the learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, the learned
AGA-I for the State and perused the
records.

2. By means of instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
applicant has assailed validity of the order
dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court
No. 19, Barabanki, whereby her application
for discharge has been rejected. The
applicant has also challenged the order
dated 22.06.2023 passed by the aforesaid
Court framing charges against her under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

3. On 02.04.2021, a First Information
Report bearing Case Crime No. 0369 of
2021 was lodged by the Assistant Regional
Transport Officer in Police Station Kotwali
Barabanki Under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC alleging that an
ambulance bearing registration number
UP41 AT 7171 was registered with the
Transport
Department
Barabanki
on
21.12.2013, in the name of the applicant,
showing her address to be 56, Rafi Nagar,
Barabanki, claiming that the ambulance
will be used for transporting the patients of
Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital and Research
Centre Private Limited, National Highway
24, GT Mau. The applicant had produced a
photo copy of her voter identity card
showing the aforesaid address, which
turned out to be false and forged as it was
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
found that there was no house bearing No.
56 in Rafi Nagar. There is a house No. 56
in neighboring Abhay Nagar, wherein one
Pradeep Mishra resides for the past several
years.
The
F.I.R.
alleges
that
the
registration of the ambulance was done on
the basis of forged documents.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet
dated 04.07./2021 has been submitted
against seven accused persons, including
the applicant, for commission of offences
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B, 177 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
However, the applicant has challenged the
order framing charges under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. only.

5. The applicant has approached this
Court challenging the order rejecting her
application for discharge, although a copy
of the application has not been brought on
record from which the contents of the
application could be gathered.

6. In the order dated 28.02.2023,
rejecting the discharge application, the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki has
recorded that it has been stated in the
discharge application that the FIR makes a
mention of Section 55 (5) of the Motor
Vehicle Act 1988 whereas the Regional
Transport Officer has no authority to lodge
a report in case of violation of the aforesaid
provision and it contains a provision for
cancellation of the registration after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the registered
owner of the vehicle.

7. The State has filed a counter
affidavit stating that a news item was
published in various newspapers, that a coaccused person Mukhtar Ansari had gone to
appear before a Court in Punjab in an
ambulance registered in District Barabanki.
Upon seeing this, the Inspector-in-charge of
Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki,
sent a letter dated 01.04.2021 to the
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer,
Barabanki, enquiring about the details of
registration of the ambulance. The Regional
Transport Officer sent a letter to the Subdivisional
Magistrate
Nawabganj,
Barabanki, informing that the ambulance
was registered in the name of the applicant
and as proof of her address she had
submitted a copy of her voter identity card.
It was found that the voter identity card
submitted by the applicant for registration
of the Vehicle, was forged. The application
for registration was accompanied by a letter
issued on a printed letterhead of Shyam
Sanjeevani Hospital and Research Centre
Private Limited, National Highway 24
G.T., Mau, stating that the ambulance will
be used for transport of patients without
any fee.

8. A copy of the statement of the
applicant recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has been annexed with the counter
affidavit, wherein she stated that she was
running Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital along
with co-accused Doctor Sheshnath Rai, in a
premise taken on rent from its owner
Pyarey Lal Sindhi. Pyarey Lal Sindhi had
sold the house to Umesh Singh in the year
2009. Umesh Singh was said to be very
close to Mukhtar Ansari and he started
creating pressure for vacating the house.
The applicant and co-accused Sheshnath
Rai went to meet co-accused Mukhtar
Ansari, who was lodged in District Jail
Ghazipur and Mukhtar Ansari assured that
nobody will ask her to vacate the house.
She had gone to meet Mukhtar Ansari in
jail again on 31.05.2013 along with some
other persons and in a meeting held in the
8 All. Alka Ray Vs. State of U.P.
655
jail, she was asked to arrange an
Ambulance in the name of her hospital,
which would be purchased from the
Vidhayak Nidhi. The applicant stated that
with the passage of time, she developed
affinity with Mukhtar Ansari and she had
tied a Rakhee on his wrist. Thereafter coaccused
Mujahid,
who
was
the
representative of Mukhtar Ansari, and coaccused Raj Nath Yadav, who used to
look after the office of Mukhtar Ansari,
asked that an ambulance was to be taken
in the name of her hospital for public
service. Mukhtar Ansari himself had told
it to her when she had got to meet him in
jail. She also felt that the purchase of
ambulance would be beneficial for her
hospital.
Therefore,
she
provided
photocopies
of
the
registration
certificate of Shyam Sanjeevani Hospital
and Research Centre Private Limited,
income certificate, PAN card of herself
and her hospital. She had also provided
some blank printed letter-heads of the
hospital by putting her signatures and
seal on those and some blank cheques
from the bank account of the hospital.
After sometime, Mujahid and Raj Nath
Yadav told her that the ambulance could
not be purchased from Vidhayak Nidhi
due to some technical problem and they
said
that
the
ambulance
will
be
transferred in the applicant's name.
Mujahid and Raj Nath Yadav had got her
signatures on some more documents and
thereafter the ambulance was purchased
and it was retained by Mukhtar Ansari
with him and the same was used by him.
On 31.03.2021, the applicant came to
know through TV news channels that
Mukhtar Ansari had gone to attend
hearing in a Court in Punjab by the
ambulance registered in her name. On
the same day, co-accused Anand Yadav
came to her hospital and made her talk
to co-accused Shahid through his mobile
phone and Shahid had told her what
statement
she
would
give
to
the
authorities in this regard.

9. Statements of several other coaccused persons and some independent
witnesses recorded by the investigating
officer have also been annexed with the
counter affidavit. On the basis of the
material collected during investigation,
Sections 120-B, 177 and 506 I.P.C. and
Section
7
of
the
Criminal
Law
(Amendment) Act, 1932 were added in
the charge-sheet.

10. On 02.09.2021, another chargesheet was submitted against four more
persons and on 05.03.2021 a third chargesheet has been submitted against two more
persons.

11. It has been stated in the counter
affidavit
that
on
the
basis
of
the
documentary, oral and electronic evidence
has
collected
during
investigation
complicity of the applicant in commission
of the offences has been established. The
applicant was in contact with co-accused
Mukhtar Ansari since the year 2009. She
was well aware about the plan of purchase
of
ambulance.
She
purchased
the
ambulance and applied for its registration
and submitted a forged voter identity card
bearing her incorrect address. The applicant
had purchased the vehicle claiming that it
will be used for the benefit of patients but
she provided it to co-accused Mukhtar
Ansari for being used in his illegal
activities. The vehicle remained in control
of Mukhtar Ansari and it was never used
for patients. When the matter relating to
illegal use of the ambulance was published
in the newspapers, the applicant met coaccused Anand Yadav, which fact is
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidenced by CCTV footage and she talked
to co-accused Shahid through mobile
phone. The material available on record
reasonably connects the applicant with
commission of the offences and it is
established that the applicant was involved
in a conspiracy with the other accused
persons.

12. I have perused the material placed
on the record available before the Court
and considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The first submission of Sri.
Pranjal Krishna, the learned Counsel for the
applicant, is that the applicant is guilty of
merely obtaining registration of the vehicle
on the basis of a false document and
consequences thereof are provided under
Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
as follows:

"55. Cancellation of registration.-

* * *
(5) If a registering authority is satisfied
that the registration of a motor vehicle has
been obtained on the basis of documents
which were, or by representation of facts
which was, false in any material particular,
or the engine number or the chassis
number embossed thereon are different
from such number entered in the certificate
of registration, the registering authority
shall after giving the owner an opportunity
to make such representation as he may wish
to make (by sending to the owner a notice
by registered post acknowledgement due at
his address entered in the certificate of
registration), and for reasons to be
recorded
in
writing
cancel
the
registration."

14. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the decision in
State
of
Arunachal
Pradesh
v.
Ramchandra Rabidas, (2019) 10 SCC 75,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
testing the validity of a directions issued by
the Guahati High Court in Ramchandra
Rabidasv.State of Tripura, 2008 SCC
OnLine Gau 99, that road traffic offences
shall be dealt with only under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
("the MV Act"), and in holding that in
cases of road traffic or motor vehicle
offences, prosecution under the provisions
of the Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") is without
sanction of law, and recourse to the
provisions of IPC would be unsustainable
in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"6.In our view there is no conflict
between the provisions of IPC and the MV
Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely
different spheres. The offences provided under
both the statutes are separate and distinct from
each other. The penal consequences provided
under both the statutes are also independent
and distinct from each other. The ingredients
of offences under both statutes, as discussed
earlier, are different, and an offender can be
tried and punished independently under both
statutes. The principle that the special law
should prevail over the general law, has no
application in cases of prosecution of offenders
in road accidents under IPC and the MV Act."

15. Sri. Pranjal Krishna has submitted
that the aforesaid enunciation of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is limited to cases
relating to road accidents only and it would not
justify initiation of prosecution for offences
under the I.P.C. on charges of getting a vehicle
registered on a wrong address.

16. Replying to the aforesaid
submissions, Sri. Shiv Nath Tilhari, the
learned A.G.A.-I has submitted that where
8 All. Alka Ray Vs. State of U.P.
657
the acts committed by the accused person
make out commission of an offence,
lodging of an FIR cannot be said to be
barred merely for the reason that some
action, other than prosecution, is also
provided in any other statute and the
accused person has to be prosecuted for
commission of the offence.

17. Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles
Act does not provide for any punishment, it
merely
provides
for
cancellation
of
registration after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the person concerned. In case the
act of getting a vehicle registered on an
incorrect address on the basis of forged
documents, makes out commission of any
offence(s) under the I.P.C. or any other
penal law, the provisions of Section 55 of
the Motor Vehicles Act would not create a
bar against prosecution of the accused
person for the offence under other statutory
provisions.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically
held
in
Ramchandra
Rabidas (Supra) that the offences provided
under I.P.C. and the Motor Vehicles Act are
separate and distinct from each other and
the penal consequences provided under
both the statutes are also independent and
distinct from each other. The ingredients of
offences under both statutes are different,
and an offender can be tried and punished
independently under both statutes. The
aforesaid principle of law is in no way
limited in its application to the cases arising
out of road accidents only. Therefore, I am
unable to accept the first submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicant.

19. The second submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant has been charged for commission
of the offence of forgery without there
being any allegation that the applicant had
herself forged the voter identity card which
was used for getting the vehicle registered.
In support of this contention, he has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Sheila
Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC
581, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that "a charge of forgery cannot be
imposed on a person who is not the maker
of the same...For constituting an offence
under Section 464 it is imperative that a
false document is made and the accused
person is the maker of the same, otherwise
the accused person is not liable for the
offence of forgery."

20. In rebuttal, Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari,
the learned A.G.A.-I has submitted that the
applicant has not been charged for
commission of the offence of forgery only,
she has been charged for entering into the
conspiracy for commission of various
offences,
including
forgery.
He
has
submitted that when a person is charged for
being a part of a criminal conspiracy, it is
not necessary that the person must be
involved in commission of all the offences
committed in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy.

21. In this case, the applicant has not
been charged for committing the offence of
forgery, rather she has been charged for
commission of offences under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 177 and
506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, which
include the charge for entering into a
criminal conspiracy for commission of the
offences alleged. However, the applicant
has preferred not to challenge the order
framing charges under Section 120-B, 177
and 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932
presumably for the reason that she accepts
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be tried for those charges. When the
applicant is being tried for committing the
offence
of
criminal
conspiracy
for
commission of offences under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, it is not necessary
that the applicant is charged for committing
those offences herself.

22. Therefore, I find no force in the
aforesaid
submission
of
the
learned
Counsel for the applicant.

23. Sri. Tilhari has placed before the
Court the decisions in the cases of
Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh,
(2008) 14 SCC 504, Bhawna Bai v.
Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217, Rajbir
Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51,
Ghulam
Hassan
Beigh
v.
Mohd.
Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657,
Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3
SCC 317, State of Maharashtra v.
Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298, Bholu Ram v.
State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140, State
of Uttar Pradesh and another versus
Akhil Sharda and others, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 820, Monica Bedi versus State
of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 1 SCC 284 and
State of U.P. versus Ranjit Singh, (1999)
2 SCC 617, to emphasis upon the limited
scope of scrutiny at the time of discharge
and framing of charges.

24. The difference between the
approach with which the Court should
examine the matter in while considering an
application for discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. and while framing charge under
Section 228 of the Code has been explained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inAmit
Kapoor versus Ramesh Chander,(2012)
9 SCC 460, in the following words:-

"17. Framing of a charge is an
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in
terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the
accused is discharged under Section 227 of
the Code. Under both these provisions, the
court is required to consider the "record of
the
case"
and
documents
submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may eitherdischargethe accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, it shall
frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the
court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the
accused and frame the charge accordingly.
This presumption is not a presumption of
law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of
an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case. There is a fine
distinction
between
the
language
of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section
227 is the expression of a definite opinion
and judgment of the Court while Section
228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the
stage of framing of charge, the Court
should form an opinion that the accused is
certainly guilty of committing an offence, is
an approach which is impermissible in
terms of Section 228 of the Code.

* * *

30. We have already noticed that the
legislature in its wisdom has used the
expression "there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an
offence". This has an inbuilt element of
presumption once the ingredients of an
offence with reference to the allegations
made are satisfied, the Court would not
doubt the case of the prosecution unduly
and extend its jurisdiction to quash the
charge in haste. A Bench of this Court
inState
of
Maharashtrav.Som
Nath
8 All. Chandrajit Singh @ Chehku & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659
Thapa(1996) 4 SCC 659referred to the
meaning of the word "presume" while
relying uponBlack's Law Dictionary.It was
defined to mean "to believe or accept upon
probable evidence"; "to take as proved until
evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In
other words, the truth of the matter has to
come out when the prosecution evidence is
led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the
defence, the incriminating material and
evidence is put to the accused in terms of
Section 313 of the Code and then the accused
is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if
any. It is only upon completion of such steps
that the trial concludes with the court
forming its final opinion and delivering its
judgment. Merely because there was a civil
transaction between the parties would not by
itself alter the status of the allegations
constituting the criminal offence.

25. Thus the law regarding the
approach to be adopted by the court while
considering an application fordischargeof
the accused persons under Section 227 and
approach while framing charges under
Section 228 of the Code, is that while
considering an application fordischargeof
the accused under Section 227 of the Code,
the Court has to form a definite opinion,
upon consideration of the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith,
that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. However,
while framing charges, the Court is not
required to form a definite opinion that the
accused is guilty of committing an offence.
The truth of the matter will come out when
evidence is led during the trial. Once the
facts and ingredients of the Section exist,
the court would presume that there is
ground to proceed against the accused and
frame the charge accordingly and the Court
would
not
doubt
the
case
of
the
prosecution.

26. Having considered the facts of the
case in light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor
(Supra) I am of the considered view that
upon consideration of the record of the
case,
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the applicant. The truth
of the matter will come out when evidence
is led during the trial.

27. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 659
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 18731 of 2023

Chandrajit Singh @ Chehku & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Purushottam Dixit, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri
Keshav Hari Dixit

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 311 - Power to Summon
material witness, or examine person
present , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 395, 396, 504,
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 -
Cross-examination
as
to
previous
statements in writing - a witness cannot
be tendered for cross-examination alone -
If he was not examined in chief, he cannot
be subjected to cross-examination.(Para14)