# Ashok Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 697 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-09 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 5274 of 2016 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43589 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 3 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 697 This is clear from the later part of the communication wherein it is noted that the second respondent is unable to take decision in the matter on account of non-production of original records before him. It is still open to the petitioners to appear before the second respondent and produce the original record before him and convince him of valid induction/expulsion of the members. 9. Thus, without interfering with the impugned notice/ communication dated 18.2.2016, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to produce original records before the second respondent and in which event, the second respondent shall proceed to decide the dispute in accordance with law. 10. No order as to costs. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. Criminal Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 5274 of 2016 Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents The applicant have prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate as well as the entire proceedings of case no. 203 of 2014, case crime no. 251 of 2014 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The Court held that to prosecute applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh for committing perjury and launch prosecution against them for their act but taking into account the submission of applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh that both of them are from legal fraternity and have unblemished career and mercy should be shown to them and the present application be dismissed with exemplary cost. The Court taking into account the fact that they are pratising lawyers of District Court Mainpuri exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/- each is imposed on them. The present application is dismissed on this ground alone. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. In compliance of this Court's order dated 22.2.2016, two affidavits filed today by Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of applicant no. 1, namely, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbeer Singh practising Advocate in District Court Mainpuri, who is also represented by Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, are taken on record. 698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of present application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mainpuri as well as entire proceedings of case no. 203 of 2014, case crime no. 251 of 2014 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. 4. From a perusal of the record, it appears that earlier two applications, i.e., Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 26563 of 2015 filed by applicant no. 1 and Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 33616 of 2015 filed by both the applicants. 5. Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 25563 of 2015 in which entire proceedings along with the order passed by the court below was challenged, was disposed of by this Court on 4.9.2015 by passing the following order:- 'Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the case including the order dated 30.7.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri and order dated 11.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in F.R. Case No. 128 of 2014 (Susheel Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh) arising out Crime No. 251 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 478, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. It has been contended by learned AGA that the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate for further Investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is stated to be pending. Hence, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application is not maintainable. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the said fact. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and submit a report to the Magistrate concerned. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of. Copy of the order shall be placed by the applicant before the S.S.P. Mainpuri for its compliance.' 3 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 699 6. Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 33616 of 2015 in which the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the court below issuing non bailable warrant and proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued was challenged, was disposed of by this Court on 4.9.2015 by passing the following order:- 'Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri in F.R. Case No. 128 of 2014 ( Susheel Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 478 and 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer claimed is refused. The application is dismissed. ' 7. Thereafter, when the applicants had not appeared before the court below, the learned Magistrate on 4.1.2016 had initiated proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. against them which is challenged in the present application. 8. When the matter was taken up as fresh on 22.2.2016, Sri Raja Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant no. 2, namely, Rampal has pointed out to the Court that applicant no. 2 has not authorized applicant no. 1, namely, Ashok Kumar to file the present application on his behalf and has also disputed the signature of applicant no. 2 on the vakalatnama filed in the present case. 9. Taking serious view of the matter, this Court on 22.2.2016 had issued notices to applicant no. 1, namely, Ashok Kumar and one Balbir Singh, who is a pratising Advocate in District Court Mainpuri and had identified the signatures of applicant no. 2 on the Vakalatnama filed along with the present application. 700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 10. The order passed by this Court on 22.2.2016 is quoted hereinbelow:- 'Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Raja Singh has filed vakalatnama on behalf applicant no. 2 which are taken on record. Sri Raja, who has put in appearance on behalf of applicant no. 2 states that the applicant no. 2 has not instructed applicant no. 1 Ashok Kumar to file the present application on his behalf. He has also disputed the signature of the applicant no. 2, namely, Rampal on the vakalatnama filed before this Court. Sri Kamlesh Singh, who has filed the present application on behalf of the applicants states that earlier two applications have been filed before this Court on behalf of applicants along with other accused persons but no such dispute was raised but Sri Raja disputed the said fact and stated that the applicant no. 2 has no knowledge about filing of the said petitions on his behalf. Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the signature of the applicants on the Vakalatnama of the present case has been identified by Sri Balbir Singh, Advocate of District Court, Mainpuri. Issue notice to Sri Balbir Singh, Advocate, who is said to be practising lawyer in district Court Mainpuri and is stated to have identified the signature of applicant no. 2 Rampal son of Shambhu Nath and also to the applicant no. 1, namely, Ashok Kumar to show cause by the next date fixed as to why proceedings may not initiated against them for perjury. List the matter on 9th March, 2016. Notice shall be sent through C.J.M., Mainpuri. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the President and Secretary of District Bar Association, Mainpuri by the District Judge, Mainpuri for necessary information. The Registrar General is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Judge, Mainpuri for its compliance. ' 11. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit filed by applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar in compliance of this Court's order dated 22.2.2016 are quoted hereinbelow:- 8. That it is humbly submitted that due to arbitrary and erroneous proceedings under section 83 Cr.P.C. despite order of this Hon'ble Court, the applicant was pushed to go into depression and on the direction of Sh. Rampal, applicant made himself signature of Sh. Rampal on Vakalatnama. 3 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 701 9. That due to depression and anxiety, applicant simply followed the directions of Sh. Rampal, in fact, the applicant cannot dare to think even in dream to commit perjury. 10. That with great respect, it is humbly requested to this Hon'ble Court that the mental agony and depression of the applicant may be taken into consideration, so that justice may be done with the applicant. 11. That the deponent has high respect and regard in the Majesty of the Court. And the applicant/deponent tenders his unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for the wrong committed by him, although the same was done during mental depression caused by proceedings initiating under section 83 Cr.P.C.' 12. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed by Sri Balbir Singh, who is a pratising Advocate in District Court Mainpuri and has identified the signature of applicant no. 2 on the Vakalatnama filed along with the present application, in compliance of this Court's order dated 22.2.2016 are quoted hereinbelow:- '6. That it is humbly submitted that the applicant/deponent had verified the signatures on the vakalatnama of applicants Sh. Ashok Kumar and Rampal on the request of Sh. Ashok Kumar. It is also submitted that while verifying the signatures on vakalatnama, the applicant had made a phone call to Sh. Rampal to confirm his signature on vakalatnama and during conversation over phone Sh. Rampal had also requested to verify his signature on vakalatnama and due to this assurance over phone by Sh. Rampal, the deponent in good faith trusted his words and verified his signatures in his absence. 7. That the applicant/deponent has neither any concern nor any ill-motive behind this unfortunate mistake, in fact, the applicant being a familiar lawyer blindly trusted the words of Sh. Rampal and verified his signature on vakalatnama, despite his absence. 8. That the deponent has highest respect and regard in the Majesty of the Court. And the applicant/deponent tenders his unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for the mistake committed in verifying the signatures of applicants on the vakalatnama, although the same was under blind trust and good faith of being lawyers.' 13. From a perusal of affidavit filed by applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar, it is evident that he is also a pratising Advocate in the District Court, Mainpuri and is involved in the present case which has been instituted by opposite party no. 2 for the offence in question and it is very disturbing to note that applicant no. 1 in para-8 of his affidavit has admitted the fact that he himself had made the signature of applicant no. 2, Rampal on the vakalatnama filed along with present application as per the directions of applicant no. 2 and he was under depression. 14. Similarly from the perusal of the affidavit filed by Sri Balbir Singh, it is evident that he too being a pratising Adovcate had admitted the fact that he verified the signature of 702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES applicant no. 2 on the vakalatnama filed along with the present application, on a conversation made by him on phone with applicant no. 2. 15. The contents of the affidavit filed by applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh show that applicant no. 1 had himself made the signature applicant no. 2 on the vakalatnama filed along with the present applicant which was verified by Sri Babir Singh, pratising Advocate at District Court Mainpuri thus there appears to be no reason of doubt that perjury has been committed by applicant no. 1 and Sri Balbir Singh. 16. The argument of Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant no. 1 and Sri. Balbir Singh that earlier Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 33616 of 2015 was filed by the applicants together against the order dated 12.102015 has also been denied by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant no. 2 and stated that no such communication was made by applicant no. 2 either to applicant no. 1 and Sri Balbir Singh for making the signature on the vakalatnama or verify his signature. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Court desired to prosecute applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh for committing perjury and launch prosecution against them for their act but taking into account the submission of applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh that both of them are from legal fraternity and have unblemished career and mercy should be shown to them and the present application be dismissed with exemplary cost. 18. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently condemned the act of applicant no. 1 Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh, Advocate for filing the present application without the authority of applicant no. 2 and further verifying his signatures on the vakalatnama though he has not signed the same. They further submitted that the matter is still under investigation and applicant no. 1 is avoiding the trial. After dismissal of Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 33616 of 2015 on 23.11.2015 which was filed against non bailable warrant and proceedings issued against them under section 82 Cr.P.C., the applicants have not appeared before the court below, hence proceedings under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against them on 4.1.2016 by the learned Magistrate against which they again approached this Court by filing the present application, hence this Court should not interfere in the matter as the matter is still under investigation. 19. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not want to go into the merits of the case. It has been found that applicant no. 1 has filed the present application on behalf of applicant no. 2 without his sign and authority and his signatures on the vakalatnama has been verified by Sri Balbir Singh. The explanation given by them for the same does not appears to be plausible one as they being in legal profession are not expected to act in such manner as they did but considering their prayer that mercy should be shown by this Court from being prosecution, this Court taking into account the fact that they are pratising lawyers of District Court Mainpuri exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/- each is imposed on them (which shall be deposited by them in the Court of 3 All. Dablu Rai Alias Dilip Rai Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 703 District Judge, Mainpuri within a month from today) with a strict warning to them not to repeat such act in future which may bring bad name to the legal fraternity. 20. The amount so deposited by them shall be transferred to District Legal Cell of District Mainpuri. 21. In case the fine so imposed on them is not deposited by them within the specified period, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from them. 22. The present application is dismissed on this ground alone. 23. It is made clear that the present application shall not be treated to be filed on behalf of applicant no. 2, Rampal. 24. The Registrar General is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Judge, Mainpuri for compliance. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 45364 of 2015 Dablu Rai Alias Dilip Rai ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh, Chandrakesh Mishra, Daya Shankar Mishra, Dhirendra Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Respondents Govt.Advocate, A.S.G.I.(2015/1709), N.D.Rai In this writ petition the question of legallity and validity of order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, respondent no. 4 directing detention of the petitioner Dablu Rai alias Dilip Rai in exercise of his power under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, has been preferred in this writ. S. H. O. Ram Narain Ram along with his force was on the duty of maintaining law and order in the area on 9.11.2014 in his private vehicle, he received an information from the police informer that several animals were being transported in two vehicles which were coming from Nawrangabad side at Kabai Paharpur and heading towards Bengal-via-Bihar for the purpose of slaughtering.