# Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1342
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 4153 of 2013
- **Bench:** Vishnu Chandra Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arjun-singh-natthu-singh-yadav-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-43132
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri
Jai
Pal
Singh
3 All].
Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1343
Counsel for the Respondents
Govt.
Advocate,
Sri
Srees
Kumar
Srivastava
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of complaint
case-offence u/s 323, 452, 504, 506 IPCon plea of alibi, malafidy-held-in absence
of public document-plea of alibi can not be
accepted-except on Trail-none of the
contingencies contained of guidelines of
Apex Court in Rajiv Thapper case-no
interference called for-keeping in view of
Art. 20 & 21-with certain directionapplication disposed of.
Held: Para-15
So
far
as
question
of
absence
of
petitioner
Amar
Singh
Yadav
and
Shailendra Yadav is concerned, though
they filed documents in respect of alibi.
These
documents
are
not
public
documents and do not fall within the
category of step one as mentioned in
Rajiv Thapar's case (Supra). Unless the
plea of alibi is established by cogent
evidence, no inference could be drawn
on the basis of those documents to this
effect that present proceedings are
abuse of process of court.
Case Law discussed:
(2013) 3 SCC 330; 2009 (3) 322 (SC)

## Text

1342
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Rajsthan (supra) the said mistake
cannot be supplemented by an affidavit.
24.
In Chandi Prasad Uniyal and
others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering
the fact that as now the appellants have either
retired or are on the verge of it, therefore, the
recovery of amount what has been paid an
excess is not justified.
25. In the present case also the
petitioners have retired and even after
retirement their retiral dues with regard to
the pay scales granted from 01.03.2000,
have been withheld.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of
the view that the promotional pay scale
granted to the petitioners cannot be termed as
promotion. The Government Order dated
03.09.2001 is the amendment and not a
clarification and it is to be implemented
prospectively. There has been no mistake or
misinterpretation of the Government Orders
while granting time scale to the petitioners.
As no opportunity was granted to the
petitioners before passing of the order dated
16.03.2005, therefore, it is liable to be set
aside.
27. I am also of the view that the
order dated 23.01.2002 passed by the
Managing Director of the respondentbank, by which the sanction orders issued
in between 15.05.2001 to 15.01.2002
have been set aside, cannot be sustained.
28. For the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, all the aforementioned
writ petitions are allowed with the
following directions:-
(i) The orders dated 23.01.2002 and
16.03.2005, passed by the Managing
Director,
U.P.
Cooperative
Village
Development Bank Ltd., are set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to
pay the arrears of salary of the petitioners
along with annual increments and arrears
thereof
treating
the
orders
dated
23.01.2002 and 16.03.2005 as nonest,
within six months from today.
(iii)
The
respondents
are
also
directed to release the amount of gratuity
and other retiral dues, within six months
from today, failing which, they shall be
liable for interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from today to the date of actual
payment, (if actual payment is made
beyond six months from today).
29. Accordingly, the orders dated
30.07.2010
and
06.04.2010
and
09.11.2009 regarding the petitioner Raj
Kumar Mehrotra of Writ Petition No.597
(S/S) of 2011, are also quashed.
30. It is made clear that the above
directions shall be applicable in those
matter of the petitioners who have been
granted higher pay-scales prior to the date
of issuance of Government Order dated
03.09.2001.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.
U/S 482/378/407 No. 4153 of 2013
 along with
W.P. No. 5058 of 2013
Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav
...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri
Jai
Pal
Singh
3 All].
Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1343
Counsel for the Respondents
Govt.
Advocate,
Sri
Srees
Kumar
Srivastava
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of complaint
case-offence u/s 323, 452, 504, 506 IPCon plea of alibi, malafidy-held-in absence
of public document-plea of alibi can not be
accepted-except on Trail-none of the
contingencies contained of guidelines of
Apex Court in Rajiv Thapper case-no
interference called for-keeping in view of
Art. 20 & 21-with certain directionapplication disposed of.
Held: Para-15
So
far
as
question
of
absence
of
petitioner
Amar
Singh
Yadav
and
Shailendra Yadav is concerned, though
they filed documents in respect of alibi.
These
documents
are
not
public
documents and do not fall within the
category of step one as mentioned in
Rajiv Thapar's case (Supra). Unless the
plea of alibi is established by cogent
evidence, no inference could be drawn
on the basis of those documents to this
effect that present proceedings are
abuse of process of court.
Case Law discussed:
(2013) 3 SCC 330; 2009 (3) 322 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra
Gupta, J.)
1. Both these petitions under section
482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short ''Cr.P.C.') have been filed for
quashing the proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 858 of 2013 Santosh Pandey Vs.
Rajneesh Yadav and others and also the
order dated 29.6.2013 passed by A.M.M.-
III, Unnao, whereby petitioners Rajneesh
Yadav alias Bajrangi , Sonu Yadav, Amar
Singh Yadav and Arjun singh alias Natthu
Singh Yadav have been summoned to
face
trial under sections 323, 452,
504,506 IPC
2. Since both these petitions are
arising out of same proceedings, they are
being disposed of by a common order.
3.
Brief facts for deciding these
petitions are that a criminal complaint has
been filed by opposite party no. 2, Smt.
Santosh Pandey against the petitioners
having Case No. 858 of 2013 alleging
therein that petitioner Rajneesh Yadav alias
Bajrangi in (Criminal Misc. Case No. 5058
of 2013 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.), the son of
petitioner Amar Singh Yadav is Gunda. On
11.4.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., some
altercation took place in between Rajneesh
Yadav alias Bajrangi and Rishi Pandey, the
son of opposite party no. 2. Rajneesh Yadav
alias Bajrangi extended threats to life to
Rishi Pandey. A complaint of it was made
to the police. The police came, but Rajneesh
Yadav alias Bajrnagi escaped. On 12.4.2013
at about 6.45 p.m. Rishi Pandey was
standing on his door. The petitioners came
alongwith sticks on their hands, abused
Rishi Pandey. Rajneesh Yadav alias
Bajrangi asked what you have achieved by
making complaint with the police. Rishi
Pandey entered into his house. All the four
petitioners also entered into the house and
beat Rishi Pandey with sticks. When
opposite party no. 2 came to rescue her son,
she was also beaten by kicks and fists and
also by stick. Rishi Pandey was badly
injured and became unconscious. The
incident was witnessed by Pradeep Awasthi,
Ashok Tiwari and several other persons,
who came on spot after hearing cries. Rishi
Pandey
was
medically examined
on
15.4.2013. When police did not take action,
complaint was filed.
4. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 4153
of 2013 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) relating to
Arjun Singh alias Natthu Singh Yadav a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
1344
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 19.9.2013 called for report
from the Circle Officer In-charge of
police station Gangaghat, District Unnao
with regard to presence of petitioner
Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav on
the date of occurrence. The police
submitted report that Arjun Singh @
Natthu Singh Yadav was on official duty
at District Mahrajganj on 12.4.2013
though he was not posted there.
5. In both these cases under section
482 Cr.P.C the ground to challenge the
summoning order and continuance of the
proceedings is that petitioners Arjun
Singh alias Natthu Singh Yadav, Amar
Singh Yadav and Shailendra Yadav alias
Sonu were at their work places at the time
of alleged incident i.e. 12.4.2013.
6. The second ground of attack is
that daughter of opposite party no. 2 was
kidnapped by one Deepu Yadav, who was
closely related to the petitioners' family
and, therefore, the petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the complaint case.
The case of kidnapping the daughter of
opposite party no. 2 is still pending
against Deepu Yadav.
7. The petitioners have filed certain
documents to demonstrate that they were
on their work places at the time of alleged
incident. The plea which has been taken
for quashing the proceedings with regard
to absence of petitioners Arjun Singh alias
Natthu Singh Yadav, Amar Singh Yadav
and Sonu Yadav is based on plea of alibi,
which is plea of defence and ought to
have been proved by the accused persons
by adducing cogent evidence.
8. So far as second ground of attack
is concerned which relates to kidnapping
of daughter of opposite party no. 2 by
Deepu Yadav is concerned, it is not in
dispute.
9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
10. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
police did not found any material against
accused petitioner Amar Singh Yadav and
his son Sonu Yadav, who have been
falsely implicated in this case and in that
regard extract of police report dated
27.9.2005 has been brought on record as
Annexure no. 7 to this petition.
11. After considering the aforesaid
facts, it cannot be said that after lapse of
more than 8 years, a false case can be
cooked up against the petitioners. The
facts which are based on some evidence,
ought to have been appreciated by the
trial court and not by this Court while
exercising jurisdiction under section 482
Cr.P.C
12. The Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar
Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330
had an occasion to rule what documents
on material could be considered while
exercising jurisdiction under section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings after
rejecting and discarding the accusations
levelled by the complaint, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. The
Apex Court in paras 29,30 and 31
observed as follows:
29. The issue being examined in the
instant case is the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it
chooses to quash the initiation of the
prosecution against an accused at the
stage of issuing process, or at the stage of
committal, or even at the stage of framing
3 All].
Arjun Singh @ Natthu Singh Yadav Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1345
of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The
same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The
power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred
to hereinabove, would have far-reaching
consequences inasmuch as it would
negate
the
prosecution's/complainant's
case
without
allowing
the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence.
Such a determination must always be
rendered
with
caution,
care
and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the
High Court has to be fully satisfied that
the material produced by the accused is
such that would lead to the conclusion
that his/their defence is based on sound,
reasonable, and indubitable facts; the
material produced is such as would rule
out and displace the assertions contained
in the charges levelled against the
accused; and the material produced is
such as would clearly reject and overrule
the veracity of the allegations contained in
the
accusations
levelled
by
the
prosecution/complainant. It should be
sufficient to rule out, reject and discard
the
accusations
levelled
by
the
prosecution/complainant,
without
the
necessity of recording any evidence. For
this the material relied upon by the
defence should not have been refuted, or
alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,
being material of sterling and impeccable
quality. The material relied upon by the
accused should be such as would persuade
a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn
the
actual
basis
of
the
accusations as false. In such a situation,
the judicial conscience of the High Court
would persuade it to exercise its power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash such
criminal proceedings, for that would
prevent abuse of process of the court, and
secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in
the foregoing paragraphs, we would
delineate the following steps to determine
the veracity of a prayer for quashment
raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material
relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the
material is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material
relied upon by the accused would rule out
the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused i.e. the
material is sufficient to reject and overrule
the factual assertions contained in the
complaint i.e. the material is such as
would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of
the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material
relied upon by the accused has not been
refuted by the prosecution/complainant;
and/or the material is such that it cannot
be
justifiably
refuted
by
the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding
with the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not serve
the ends of justice?
30.5.If the answer to all the steps is
in the affirmative, the judicial conscience
of the High Court should persuade it to
quash such criminal proceedings in
exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of
power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time,
which would otherwise be wasted in
holding
such
a
trial
(as
well
as
proceedings arising therefrom) specially
1346
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when it is clear that the same would not
conclude in the conviction of the accused.
13. In light of the aforesaid ratio
propounded and directions issued this
case has to be judged on touch stone of
the aforesaid guidelines issued in Rajiv
Thapar's case (Supra). So far as the report
submitted by the police in this court is
concerned, no doubt it mentions that
petitioner Arjun Singh alias Natthu Singh
Yadav was present on 12.4.2013 at
Mahrajganj on his official duty.
14. As report has been submitted in
pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it cannot be
ignored by this Court. But at the same
time, the report which was submitted by
the C.O., Unnao is based on statement and
record which ought to have been tested
with cross examination during trial.
15. So far as question of absence of
petitioner
Amar
Singh
Yadav
and
Shailendra Yadav is concerned, though
they filed documents in respect of alibi.
These
documents
are
not
public
documents and do not fall within the
category of step one as mentioned in
Rajiv Thapar's case (Supra). Unless the
plea of alibi is established by cogent
evidence, no inference could be drawn on
the basis of those documents to this effect
that present proceedings are abuse of
process of court.
16. So far as petitioner Rajneesh
Yadav alias Bajrangi is concerned, he has
not pleaded his absence. So far as the
evidence of medical examination causing
injury to Rishi Pandey is concerned, it is
on record coupled with
evidence of
injured. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot
be said that present proceedings are abuse
of process of court unless plea of alibi
taken by the petitioners is established by
cogent evidence.
17. As Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has asked for report in respect of
petitioner Arjun Singh alias Natthu Singh
Yadav, this Court is of the view that in
these circumstances, if this petition is
finally
disposed
of
with
following
directions, it would serve the ends of
justice and the principle of fair trial
enshrined under Articles 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India would be advised.
Directions
1.That in case the petitioners appear
before trial court within four weeks from
today and move application for bail, the
same shall be considered and disposed of
expeditiously in accordance with law and
also keeping in view the directions
contained in the judgment delivered by
the Apex court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ
322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P.). If bail application of the
petitioners is not disposed of on same day
by the court concerned , the petitioners
shall be released on interim bail till the
final order passed thereon.
18. For four weeks or till the date of
surrender,
whichever
is
earlier,
no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioners.
2.That after appearing in the trial
court,
the
petitioners
shall
move
appropriate application before trial court.
The trial court shall proceed to decide the
plea of defence in the form of alibi before
further
proceeding
with
trial.
The
petitioners may be allowed to adduce
evidence in respect of plea taken by them
3 All].
C/M Vikas Madhyamik Vidyalay Tindola Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1347
as plea of alibi and the trial court after
giving opportunity to adduce evidence to
the prosecution will decide the plea of
alibi taken by the petitioners Arjun Singh
alias Natthu Singh Yadav, Amar Singh
Yadav, Shailendra Yadav and Sonu
Yadav. In case the plea of alibi fails then
the trial shall proceed against them in
accordance with law.
3.That trial court will decide the
defence plea of alibi taken by the
aforesaid petitioners within four months
from the date of communication of this
order.
19. Interim order granted by this
court in both these petitions stand
vacated.
20. In view of the above, these two
petition are disposed of finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Service Single No. 6488 of 2014
C/M Vikas Madhyamik Vidyalay Tindola
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.C. Verma, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Shukla
U.P. Basic Education Act 1972-Section
3(2),
14,
15(5)-Ban
imposed
on
appointment of class IV employee by G.O.
06.01.2011-in
recognized
institutionsheld-arbitrary,discriminatory
exploitative
in
nature-taking
away
provision
of
appointment
contrary
to
statutory
provisions-and engagement
outsourcing
nothing but a system of supply of work
force through contractor-already quashed
being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of
Constitution-same being adopted in Basic
Education also-order impugned quashedwith follow up direction.
Held: Para-8 & 13
8. Thus, considering the scheme relating
to appointment on Class IV posts in a
Junior High School, I am of the opinion
that the reasoning given in the judgment
rendered in the case of C/M Lal Babu
Baijal Memorial Inter college (supra),
would also apply to the institutions
governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Act, 1972. The Management is
under mandate of law to fill vacancies
within two months of its occurrence and
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
prescribed under the Rules, which does
not permit employing services of Class
IV employees by 'outsourcing'.
13. In view of above discussion, this writ
petition is allowed. The order dated
27.9.2014 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Barabanki is quashed.
The
Management
shall
be
free
to
advertise the vacancies. However, it is
provided that the Management shall
specifically mention in the advertisement
that the selection would be held subject
to decision of this Court in special appeal
No.1023 of 2012 pending against the
judgment of this Court dated 21.3.2012.
The District Basic Education Officer,
Barabanki is further directed to act in
accordance with law and nominate a
specialist in case any such request is
made
by
the
Management,
after
following the procedure prescribed for
advertising
the
vacancies.
These,
directions are without prejudice to the
power of the District Basic Education
Officer to examine the validity of the
selection at the stage of grant of
approval under Rule 15 (5).
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 11760 of 2011