# Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5495 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-kumar-singh-atul-rai-v-state-of-u-p-51210
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 177 - Territorial
Jurisdiction - Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides
that every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court in whose
jurisdiction
it
was
committed.
The
jurisdiction
of
a
Criminal
Court
is
determined by: (i) the offence and/or (ii)
the offender. The question of territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves
around: (i) place of commission of the
offence; (ii) place where the consequence
of an act, both of which constitute an
offence, ensues; (iii) place where the
accused was found; (iv) place where the
victim was found; (v) place where the
property in respect of which the offence
was committed was found; or(vi) place
where the property forming the subjectmatter of an offence was required to be
returned or accounted for. In the instant
case, the Applicant's argument was that
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he was a resident of Varanasi and the
deceased committed suicide at New Delhi.
There was no allegation of any act
committed at Lucknow which may be said
to amount to an offence committed by the
Applicant within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Courts at Lucknow. Held: Part cause
of
action
accrued
in
the
territorial
jurisdiction at Lucknow, as the victim and
her friend had visited the house of the coaccused in Lucknow with regard to an
earlier FIR lodged against the present
Applicant
and
had
given
their
live
St.ments on Facebook. Before setting
herself ablaze in front of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, New Delhi, the victim had
St.d that there was a conspiracy between
the present Applicant and co-accused, and
had
expressed
apprehension
that
witnesses were being threatened, she was
being instigated to commit suicide, and
vital pieces of evidence were being
destroyed by the accused persons. (Para
43)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,914 of 60,866. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39914 for what follows._

12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
305

24. In such a situation, I find that the
matter needs to be heard on merit and State
be directed to comply the mandatory
provisions of Section 19 making a predeposit of 75% to the awarded amount by
extending the time, as has been done by
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goodyear
India
Limited
(supra),
Snehadeep
Structures Private Limited (supra) and
Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority (supra).

25. Thus, looking to the facts of the
case that award was made in the year 2011
for an amount of Rs.10,26,275.86, almost
thirteen years have elapsed and the matter
could not be heard on merit despite
Rs.7,69,707/- has been deposited by the
State and withdrawn by the claimantrespondent in the year 2014, to balance the
equity, the State is hereby directed to
deposit Rs.20,00,000/- within one month
from today, which the claimant-respondent
would be entitled to withdraw and the
matter would be heard by the Court below
on merits.

26. In view of the above, the order
dated 08.11.2012 rejecting application
seeking extension of time along with
application under Section 34 of Act of 1996
as well as order dated 23.02.2017 rejecting
delay condonation application as well as
recall application are hereby set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the District
Judge, Mathura to hear the application filed
by the petitioner-State under Section 34
of Act of 1996 subject to deposit of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) within a period of one month from
today. In case of default by the State in
making deposit of the aforesaid amount
within the stipulated time, the orders
passed by the Court below would stand
revived.

27. The entire exercise shall be carried
out by the District Judge, post deposit by
the State, within a period of three month.

28. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds in part.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5495 of 2023

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Kaustubh Singh, Malay Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 177 - Territorial
Jurisdiction - Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides
that every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court in whose
jurisdiction
it
was
committed.
The
jurisdiction
of
a
Criminal
Court
is
determined by: (i) the offence and/or (ii)
the offender. The question of territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves
around: (i) place of commission of the
offence; (ii) place where the consequence
of an act, both of which constitute an
offence, ensues; (iii) place where the
accused was found; (iv) place where the
victim was found; (v) place where the
property in respect of which the offence
was committed was found; or(vi) place
where the property forming the subjectmatter of an offence was required to be
returned or accounted for. In the instant
case, the Applicant's argument was that
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he was a resident of Varanasi and the
deceased committed suicide at New Delhi.
There was no allegation of any act
committed at Lucknow which may be said
to amount to an offence committed by the
Applicant within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Courts at Lucknow. Held: Part cause
of
action
accrued
in
the
territorial
jurisdiction at Lucknow, as the victim and
her friend had visited the house of the coaccused in Lucknow with regard to an
earlier FIR lodged against the present
Applicant
and
had
given
their
live
St.ments on Facebook. Before setting
herself ablaze in front of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, New Delhi, the victim had
St.d that there was a conspiracy between
the present Applicant and co-accused, and
had
expressed
apprehension
that
witnesses were being threatened, she was
being instigated to commit suicide, and
vital pieces of evidence were being
destroyed by the accused persons. (Para
43)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Y. Abraham Ajith & ors. Vs Inspector of
Police, Chennai & anr., (2004) 8 SCC 100

2. Kaushik Chatterjee Vs St. of Har. & ors.,
(2020) 10 SCC 92

3. Rana Ayyub Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
(2023) 4 SCC 357

4. V.C. Shukla Vs St. (Delhi Administration),
(1980) 2 SCC 665

5. St. of Kerala Vs P. Sugathan & anr., (2000) 8
SCC 203

6. Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal & ors. Vs St.
of Mah., (1964) 2 SCR 378

7. St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan
Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600

8. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Sppl 1 SCC
335

9. Varala Bharath Kumar & anr. Vs St. of
Telangana & anr., (2017) 9 SCC 413

10. S.S.Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.,
(2010) 12 SCC 190

11. M. Arjunan Vs St. Represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315

12. Ram Narayan Popli Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641

13. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi,
MANU/SC/1010/2004

14. St. of Raj. Vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021)
11 SCC 191

15. Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I., (2010) 9 SCC 368

16. R.A.H. Siguran Vs Shankare Gowda alias
Shankara & anr., (2017) 16 SCC 126

17. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs St. (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi), MANU/SC/1453/2009

18. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan
Singh, AIR 2023 SC 1987

19. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab & ors.,
MANU/SC/0163/2020

20. St. of U.P. Vs O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC
705

21. Amanullah & anr. Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
(2016) 6 SCC 699

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishwajeet Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kaustubh
Singh, Sri Pankaj Singh, Sri Suryansh
Singh and Sri Dileep Srivastava, learned
counsel for the applicant/ petitioner and Sri
V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate
General of U.P. assisted by Sri Anurag
Verma, A.G.A.-I and Sri Ajeet Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State.
12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
307

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the
following relief:-

"WHEREFORE,
it
is
most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may very graciously be pleased to setaside/quash the cognizance order dated
20.12.2021, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in Criminal
Case No.97946 of 2021, under Sections
120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504, 506 IPC
which is annexed as Annexure No.1 and the
chargesheet no.02 dated 27.08.2021 as
annexed as Annexure No.2 respectively to
this
application;
and
subsequent
proceedings of the Sessions Trial no.1188
of 2022 (State Vs Atul Singh alias Atul Rai)
pending before the Court of Additional
District Judge -19/ M.P.M.L.A. Court,
Lucknow be also quashed.
Or,

to pass any order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem just
and proper to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court and to give effect to
the provisions provided under the CrPC to
secure the ends of justice."

3. On the first date of admission i.e.
30.05.2023, this Court granted interim
order, which reads as under:-

"1. Sri Malay Prasad assisted by
Ms Saloni Mathur, Sri Piyush Shukla and
Ms. Tanya Makkar, Advocates, for the
applicant and Sri Manish Kumar Pandey,
learned A.G.A. for the State, are present.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

3. The instant application has
been filed under section 482, Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the cognizance order
20.12.2021, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in Criminal
Case No., 97946 of 2021, under sections
120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504, 506
I.P.C., the chargesheet no. 02 dated
27.08.2021 in pursuance thereof and
subsequent proceedings of the Sessions
Trial No. 1188 of 2022 (State v. Atul Singh
alias Atul Rai) pending before the Court of
Addl. District Judge-19/M.P.M.L.A. Court,
Lucknow.

4. The aforesaid proceedings
have been initiated on the basis of an F.I.R.
lodged on 27.08.2021 bearing Case Crime
No. 309 of 2021 at P.S. Hazratganj,
Lucknow, against the applicant and coaccused Amitabh Thakur by a Senior Sub
Inspector of Police stating that an F.I.R.
bearing Case Crime No. 548 of 2019 under
sections 376, 420, 504, 506, I.P.C., was
registered against the applicant in P.S.
Lanka, District Varanasi, in which a
chargesheet
has
been
submitted
for
mounting undue pressure on the victim. As
many as seven cases were lodged against
the victim from the side of the applicant.
The victim has submitted applications
alleging undue pressure being put on her
by the accused persons and she committed
self-immolation
at
New
Delhi
on
16.08.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant
has already been acquitted in the said Case
Crime No. 548 of 2019 lodged at P.S.
Lanka, District Varanasi. Regarding selfimmolation committed by the informant at
New Delhi, a case bearing F.IR.No. 113 of
2021, I.P.C. has been lodged in P.S. Tilak
Marg, New Delhi.

6. The allegation leveled against
the applicant in the F.I.R In question is that
he had instigated the victim to commit
suicide. The applicant is a resident of
Varanasi and the deceased committed
suicide at New Delhi. There is no
allegation of any act committed at
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lucknow, which may be said to be
amounting to an offence committed by the
applicant within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Courts at Lucknow.

7. Learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on section
177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which provides that "every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a
Court
in
whose
jurisdiction
it
was
committed."

8.
The
matter
requires
consideration.

9. Learned A.G.A. may file
counter affidavit within 3 weeks. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed within 1 week
thereafter.

10. List this case in the week
commencing 10.07.2023.

11. Till the next date of listing,
operation and implementation of the
cognizance order 20.12.2021, passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow, in Criminal Case No., 97946 of
2021, under sections 120-B, 167, 195-A,
218, 306, 504, 506 I.P.C., chargesheet no.
02 dated 27.08.2021 in pursuance thereof
and subsequent proceedings of the Sessions
Trial No. 1188 of 2022 (State v. Atul Singh
alias Atul Rai) pending before the Court of
Addl. District Judge-19/M.P.M.L.A. Court,
Lucknow, shall remain in abeyance."

4.
Notably,
this
Court
while
considering the fact that accused-applicant
is a resident of Varanasi, the victim
committed suicide at New Delhi and there
is no allegation of any act committed at
Lucknow, which may be said to be
amounting to an offence committed by the
applicant within the territorial jurisdiction
of the courts at Lucknow, so in view of
Section 177 Cr.P.C., which provides that
every offence shall ordinarily be incurred
into and tried by a court in whose
jurisdiction it was committed granted
interim order.

5. Sri Vishwajeet Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, has submitted that the
applicant has neither abetted the act of
suicide nor has played any role in any kind
of instigation to the said persons, who had
allegedly attempted to commit suicide in
front of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
eventually succumbed to the burn injuries
caused by such incident. Consequently, the
aforesaid incident resulted in lodging of the
F.I.R. in the present case which was
registered as Case Crime No.309 of 2021
under Sections 120-B, 167, 195-A, 218,
306, 504 & 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Hazaratganj,
District Lucknow on 27.08.2021. The
aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged against the
applicant as well as one Amitabh Thakur,
who was an IPS officer and was posted as
Inspector General of Police at that point of
time.

6. Further submission is that the
allegation in the aforesaid F.I.R. against the
accused applicant was that Amitabh Thakur
had taken money from the applicant herein
namely Atul Rai for tarnishing the image of
the prosecutrix. However, the prosecution
failed miserably to bring forth even an iota
of evidence in the case diary to this effect.
The applicant has been in Jail ever since his
arrest (he had surrendered) on 22.06.2019
and has not been released till date except
for a period of five months from February
2024 till May 2024 when he was out on
Medical Bail. Apart from this, he has been
in continuous incarceration for the entire
period when the incident of the alleged
suicide had occurred on 16.08.2021.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that the question of any
physical contact between the applicant and
12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
309
co-accused Amitabh Thakur has neither
been established nor proved by the
prosecution.
Even
prima
facie
the
ingredients of Section 120-B I.P.C. has not
been fulfilled and the prosecution has failed
to produce any documentary or other
evidence to show any kind of connection
between the applicant and the co-accused
Amitabh Thakur. In fact the applicant
categorically submits that he neither knows
Amitabh Thakur nor has ever met with him
in person and therefore, they are not even
acquainted to each other. Hence, under
these
circumstances,
the
present
chargesheet and cognizance order are liable
to be quashed by this Court under Section
482
Cr.P.C.
exercising
extra-ordinary
powers.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has informed that on 01.05.2019, one FIR
bearing F.I.R. No.548 of 2019 was
registered under Sections 420, 376, 504,
506 I.P.C. and Section 67-A of I.T. Act. In
the aforesaid FIR, the allegation against the
present applicant was that on 07.03.2018,
the applicant raped the victim/ prosecutrix
(since deceased).

9. The
applicant
had
filed his
nomination on 25.04.2019 as a joint
candidate of the opposition on the post of
Member of Parliament in General Election
from Bahujan Samaj Party. Further, after
winning in the General Assembly Election,
the applicant surrendered before the learned
Trial Court on 22.06.2019. On 05.03.2020,
father
of
the
applicant
moved
an
application
for
conducting
further
investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
In this application, it was categorically
stated that there had been conspiracy
behind prosecuting the applicant. In the
aforesaid
application,
father
of
the
applicant provided one audio clip which
allegedly shows that the complainant/
victim had lodged the F.I.R. for grabbing
money and also for tarnishing the image of
the applicant. Pursuant to the aforesaid
application dated 05.03.2020, the Circle
Officer had published a report dated
08.08.2020 wherein the veracity of audio
recording had been verified by the Forensic
Science Laboratory and the aforesaid
recording clearly established, as per learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
that
the
conspiracy
was
hatched
against
the
applicant with a motive to cancel his
nomination.
After
the
report
dated
08.08.2020 having been published and
audio recording circulated, the victim
(since deceased) had given a representation
dated
10.11.2020
to
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi saying
that her witnesses were threatened and coaccused Amitabh Thakur had taken money
from the applicant for preparing false
evidence to produce before the learned
Trial Court. She also stated that co-accused
Amitabh Thakur is spreading false news on
social
media
against
her
and other
witnesses. As per the F.I.R., in the present
case, when the victim/prosecutrix felt
ashamed on account of the conduct of the
present applicant and co-accused Amitabh
Thakur and both instigated the victim and
her friend to finish themselves, both have
committed suicide in front of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India on 16.08.2021
making video of the incident making
specific allegation against the applicant and
co-accused Amitabh Thakur. After the
aforesaid unfortunate incident, the Joint
Committee, constituted for ascertaining the
reason behind the suicide of both the
aforesaid persons, had submitted its report
on 27.08.2021. Pursuant to the Joint
Committee report, the F.I.R. in the present
case was lodged against the applicant
wherein it has been alleged that co-accused
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Amitabh Thakur in connivance with the
applicant had published the report of the
Circle Officer dated 08.08.2020 on the
social media but moreover, Amitabh
Thakur was preparing false evidence to
produce before the learned Trial Court in
the earlier FIR bearing FIR No.548 of 2019
(supra). On 06.08.2022, the Trial Court
acquitted the present applicant in FIR
No.548 of 2019 (supra). Learned counsel
has informed that the criminal appeal
against the acquittal order is pending
consideration before the High Court.

10. Sri Singh has submitted that
Section 177 Cr.P.C. reiterates the wellestablished common law rule referred to in
Halsbury's Laws of England that the proper
and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime
is the area of jurisdiction in which on the
evidence, the facts occur and which are
alleged to constitute the crime. Therefore,
in the present case, the crucial question is
as to whether any part of the cause of
action arose within the jurisdiction of the
court concerned. In terms of Section 177
Cr.P.C it is the place where the offence has
been committed and in essence it is the
cause of action for initiation of the
proceedings against the accused.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the Apex Court
in re; Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs.
Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.,
(2004) 8 SCC 100, has been pleased to deal
with the aforesaid issue and hold that the
expression "cause of action" means every
fact which it would be necessary for the
complainant to prove if traversed in order
to support his right or grievance to the
judgement of the Court. Every fact, which
is necessary to be proved, as distinguished
from every piece of evidence which is
necessary to prove such fact, comprises in
"cause of action". In other words, it is
settled law that cause of action consists of
bundle of facts, which taken with the law
applicable to them, gives the allegedly
affected party a right to claim relief against
the opponent. Hence it must include some
act done by the latter since in the absence
of such an act no cause of action would
possibly accrue or arise. Therefore, in the
present case, when the aforesaid legal
principle
is
applied,
the
inevitable
conclusion is that no part of cause of action
arose in Lucknow and therefore, the
learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction to
deal with the matter.

12. Further submission of learned
counsel for the applicant is that on the
territorial aspect under Section 177 Cr.P.C,
the Apex Court in re; Kaushik Chatterjee
Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2020)
10 SCC 92, has been pleased to hold that
while
jurisdiction
of
civil
court
is
determined by; (i) Territorial, (ii) Pecuniary
limits, the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is
determined by; (i) the offence and/or (ii)
the offender. Similar view has been taken
by the Apex Court in re; Rana Ayyub Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4
SCC 357, wherein the Apex Court in para34 held as under:-

"34. As pointed out by this Court
in Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana,
(2020) 10 SCC 92, the question of
territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases
revolves around: (i) place of commission of
the offence; or (ii) place where the
consequence of an act, both of which
constitute an offence, ensues; or (iii) place
where the accused was found: or (iv) place
where the victim was found; (v) place
where the property in respect of which the
offence was committed, was found; or (vi)
place where the property forming the
12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
311
subject-matter of an offence was required
to be returned or accounted for, etc.
according as the case may be."

13. So far as the offence of criminal
conspiracy is concerned, learned Senior
Advocate has stated that Section 120B of
I.P.C. prescribed the Punishment for
Criminal Conspiracy which by itself is an
independent offence, punishable separately
from the main offence. In other words, the
offence of Criminal Conspiracy can be
established by direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence.

14. Further submission is that Section10 of the Evidence Act introduces the
doctrine of agency and will be attracted
only when the court is satisfied that there is
a reasonable grounds to believe that two or
more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an achievable
ground, i.e. there should be prima facie
evidence that the person was a party to the
conspiracy before his acts can be used
against the co-conspirator.

15. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that it is well settled law
that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and
prosecution cannot be burdened to establish
the same with direct piece of evidence. The
prosecution can discharge its onus by
relying upon the circumstances to establish
existence of conspiracy. However, the
circumstances
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution have to be of a definite
character
which
unerringly
pointing
towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, the
prosecution has to produce evidence not
only to show that the accused has
knowledge of object of conspiracy but also
of the agreement. In the charge of
conspiracy, the Court has to guard itself
against the danger of unfairness to the
accused.
By
means
of
evidence
in
conspiracy,
which
is
otherwise
inadmissible in the Trial of any other
substantive offence, the prosecution tries to
implicate the accused not only in the
conspiracy itself but also in the substantive
crime of the alleged conspirators. There is
always difficulty in tracing the precise
contribution of each member of the
conspiracy but then there has to cogent and
convincing evidence against each one of
the accused charged with the offence of
conspiracy.

16. Further submission of learned
counsel for the applicant is that perusal of
Section 120-A of the I.P.C. would make it
manifestly clear that for imputing a person
as a "conspirator" there has to be existence
of "an agreement" between two or more
persons either to do "an illegal act" or to do
"legal act through illegal means". Since,
legislature has not provided any deeming
provision to draw presumption in favor of
existence of conspiracy, the prosecution
cannot be absolved of the responsibility of
bringing sufficient circumstances pointing
towards existence of an agreement amongst
the conspirators to do an "illegal act" or "a
legal act through illegal means". Apart
from commission of "acts", prosecution is
also vested with a responsibility to bring
evidence on record of the crime committed
in pursuance of "an agreement" made
between the accused persons who were
parties to the alleged conspiracy. Hence, it
is a well settled proposition of law that an
offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to
have been established on mere suspicion,
surmises or inferences which are not
supported
by
cogent
or
acceptable
evidence.

17. In support of his aforesaid
arguments, reliance has been placed by the
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned counsel for the applicant upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in re; V.C.
Shukla Vs. State (Delhi Administration),
(1980) 2 SCC 665, the Apex Court has
been pleased to hold that to prove criminal
conspiracy there must be evidence direct or
circumstantial to show that there was an
agreement between two or more persons to
commit an offence. There must be a
meeting of minds resulting in ultimate
decision
taken
by
the
conspirators
regarding the commission of an offence;
when the factum of conspiracy is sought to
be
inferred
from
circumstances,
the
prosecution
has
to
show
that
the
circumstances give rise to a conclusive or
irresistible inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an
offence. More importantly, as in all other
criminal offences, the prosecution has to
discharge its onus of proving the case
against the accused beyond reasonable
doubts. Further, for establishing a charge of
Criminal Conspiracy, the circumstances in
a case, when taking together on their face
value, should indicate the meeting of the
minds between the conspirator for the
intended objects of committing an illegal
act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal
means. A few bits here and a few bits there
on which the prosecution relies cannot be
held to be adequate for connecting the
accused with the commission of the crime
of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown
that all means adopted, and illegal acts
done were in furtherance of the object of
conspiracy hatched. In other words, for the
offence of conspiracy, some kind of
physical manifestation of agreement is
required to be established.

18. In the case of State of Kerala Vs. P.
Sugathan & Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 203, the
Apex Court has been pleased to hold that
criminal conspiracy can be established on the
basis of circumstantial evidence meaning
thereby that circumstances should give rise to
a conclusive inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an
offence and such circumstances should be
prior in time than actual commission of
offence. Since, conspiracy is a continuing
offence and any act committed by any of the
conspirators during subsistence of the
conspiracy would attract the ingredients of
Section 120 B of the I.P.C.

19. The Apex Court in re; Bhagwan
Swarup Lal Bishan Lal and Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra, (1964) 2 SCR 378, has
been pleased to hold in para 8 of the aforesaid
judgment that the essence of conspiracy is
that there should be an agreement between
person to do one or other of the acts
described in Section. The said agreement
may be proved by direct evidence or may be
inferred from act and conduct of the parties.

20. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi)
Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru,
(2005) 11 SCC 600, the Apex Court has been
pleased to hold in para 101 with regard to
criminal conspiracy that "one more principle
which deserves notice is that the cumulative
effect of the proved circumstances should be
taken into account in determining the guilt of
the accused rather than adopting an isolated
approach to each of the circumstances. Of
course, each one of the circumstances, should
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly,
in regard to appreciation of evidence relating
to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to
see that the acts or conduct of the parties must
be conscious and clear enough to infer their
concurrence as to the common design and its
execution.

21. Learned Senior Advocate has,
therefore, submitted that lodging the FIR
against the present applicant, filing charge
12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
313
sheet against him and taking cognizance by
the learned Trial Court are abuse of the
process of the Court, therefore, in view of
the dictum of the Apex Court in re; State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Sppl 1
SCC 335, charge sheet and cognizance
order may be quashed. Learned Senior
Advocate has submitted that the Apex
Court in re; Varala Bharath Kumar &
Anr. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr.,
(2017) 9 SCC 413, has been pleased to
hold in paragraphs 6 & 7 that the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or
inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure can be
exercised by the High Court, either to
prevent abuse of process of the court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Where allegations made in the First
Information Report/the complaint or the
outcome of investigation as found in the
Charge Sheet, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out the case against the accused;
where the allegations do not disclose the
ingredients of the offence alleged; where
the uncontroverted allegations made in the
First Information Report or complaint and
the material collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
offence alleged and make out a case against
the accused; where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with malafide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge, the power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India or under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
may
be
exercised.
Further,
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully or with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down under Section 482
itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice,
for the administration of which alone courts
exist. The court must be careful and see
that its decision in exercise of its power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
powers should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. Of course, no hard
and fast rule can be laid down in regard to
cases in which the High Court will exercise
its extra ordinary jurisdiction of quashing
the proceedings at any stage.

22. Sri Vishwajeet Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, has further submitted that
the law governing Section 306 of the I.P.C.
is well settled and deals with the abetment
of suicide. The basic ingredients to
constitute an offence u/s 306 I.P.C are
suicidal death and abetment thereof.
Similarly, abetment of a thing is defined
under Section 107 I.P.C. The scope and
ambit of Section 107 I.P.C. and it is corelation with Section 306 I.P.C. has been
discussed repeatedly by the Apex Court. In
the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190, it
has been observed in para 25 as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental
process
of
instigating
a
person
or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this
court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide."

23. Similarly in another case of M.
Arjunan Vs. State Represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, the
Apex Court while explaining the necessary
ingredients of Section 306 of the I.P.C. in
detail, observed as under:-

"7. The essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 306 І.Р.С. are:
(i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the
accused, however, Insulting the deceased
by using abusive language will not, by
itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
There should be evidence capable of
suggesting that the accused intended by
such act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied the accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 IPC."

24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, learned counsel
for the applicant has stated that the
impugned F.I.R. No.0309 of 2021 (supra),
which has been filed at Lucknow and
charge sheet has also been filed against the
present applicant and co-accused Amitabh
Thakur on 27.08.2021 and the learned Trial
Court took cognizance of the aforesaid
charge sheet on 20.12.2021 is patently
illegal and unwarranted in view of Section
177 Cr.P.C. Therefore, pursuant to the
charge sheet and cognizance thereof, the
trial should not be conducted at Lucknow.

25. Per contra, Sri V. K. Shahi,
learned Additional Advocate General of
U.P., assisted by Sri Anurag Verma,
learned A.G.A., has submitted that since
after suicide of aforesaid two persons on
16.08.2021,
the
State
Government
constituted Joint Committee on 27.08.2021
at Lucknow and pursuant to the report of
the Joint Committee, FIR No.0309 of 2021
(supra) has been lodged at Lucknow. The
victim (since deceased) met with coaccused Amitabh Thakur at Lucknow
requesting
him
not
to
defame
her
circulating the report dated 08.08.2020 of
the Circle Officer on the social media and
had said to him that if he would do the
character assassination of the victim, she
will have no other option to commit suicide
and for that, co-accused Amitabh Thakur
and present applicant would be responsible
inasmuch as it is the present applicant, who
may be beneficiary if co-accused Amitabh
Thakur prepares false evidences against the
victim to produce in the trial proceedings
relating to FIR No.548 of 2019 (supra). The
applicant and co-accused Amitabh Thakur
got success in the aforesaid plan as the
victim alongwith her friend committed
suicide on 16.08.2021 and the learned Trial
Court acquitted the present applicant on
06.08.2022.

26. Therefore, Sri Shahi has submitted
that in the aforesaid circumstances, the FIR
could have been lodged at Lucknow,
thereafter the charge sheet may be filed and
cognizance might be taken by the learned
Trial Court at Lucknow. Sri Shahi briefly
referred Sections 177, 178, 179, 180 & 460
Cr.P.C., which read as under:-

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry
and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.-
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several
local areas an offence was committed, or
12 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
315

(b) where an offence is committed
partly in one local area and partly in
another, or

(c) where an offence is a
continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several
acts done in different local areas, it may be
inquired into or tried by a Court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

179. Offence triable where act is
done or consequence ensues.-When an
act is an offence by reason of anything
which has been done and of a consequence
which has ensued, the offence may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction such thing has
been done or such consequence has ensued.

180. Place of trial where act is
an offence by reason of relation to other
offence.-When an act is an offence by
reason of its relation to any other act which
is also an offence or which would be an
offence if the doer were capable of
committing an offence, the first-mentioned
offence may be inquired into or tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction either
act was done."

460. Irregularities which do not
vitiate proceedings.-If any Magistrate not
empowered by law to do any of the
following things, namely:-

(e) to take cognizance of an
offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 190.

27. He has also referred Section 462
Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

"462. Proceedings in wrong
place.-No finding, sentence or order of
any Criminal Court shall be set aside
merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial
or other proceedings in the course of which
it was arrived at or passed, took place in a
wrong sessions division, district, subdivision or other local area, unless it
appears that such error has in fact
occasioned a failure of justice."

28. Sri Shahi has apprised that the
applicant approached this Court seeking
bail by filing Bail Application No. 5473 of
2022, which was rejected by this Court
vide order dated 07.06.2022. The applicant
again approached this Court seeking bail by
filing the Second Bail Application No.1564
of 2023, which was rejected vide order
dated
14.03.2023.
Subsequently,
the
applicant filed the Third Bail Application
No.12425 of 2023, which was also rejected
by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024.
The applicant then assailed the order dated
17.05.2024 before the Apex Court, but the
same was rejected vide order dated
03.06.2024. The rejection of the bail
applications by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, indicates the prima
facie complicity of the applicant in the
offence.

29. While rejecting the first bail
application of the present applicant vide
order dated 07.06.2022 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.5473 of 2022,
this Court briefly considered the facts and
criminal history of the applicant. Relevant
paragraphs of the order dated 07.06.2022
read as under:-

"4. It is stated in para 38 of the
affidavit that out of 23 cases, only 12 are
still pending against the accused-applicant.
The close scrutiny of the averments of para
38 of the affidavit would reveal that though
the
accused-applicant
has
secured
acquittal in some of the cases against him
but some of the heinous cases including
murder and rape etc., are still pending
against him in the Courts.
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. On 10.11.2020, the victim gave
an application to the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Varanasi alleging that coaccused-Amitabh Thakur, an Ex IPS officer
was
manufacturing
false
documents/evidence against the victim and
her friend to favour of present accusedapplicant on monetary consideration. It
was alleged that prosecutrix's dignity,
honour and image were being besmirch
and tarnished. The accused and co-accused
were abating and drawing her close to
commit
suicide.
She
was
being
continuously
harassed
physically
and
mentally and subjected to cruelty to change
her stand before the Court. The accusedapplicant
and
his
henchman
were
employing all kinds of undue pressure on
her to change her stand before the Court
and turn hostile. She made allegations
against the co-accused-Amitabh Thakur,
who in active connivance with the present
accused-applicant, extended threat to her
life. She also said that she would be
compelled to commit suicide because of the
accused-applicant and co-accused-Amitabh
Thakur.

8. The victim and her friendSatyam
Prakash
Rai,
thereafter,
on
16.08.2021 attempted to commit suicide
outside the Gate No.6 of the Supreme Court
and went live on Facebook making serious
allegations against the accused-applicant
and
co-accused-Amitabh
Thakur.
Statements made by two victims live on
Facebook have been treated as dying
declarations.

9. The Director General of Police
constituted a Two Members Committee
consisting of Director General, U.P. Police
Recruitment and Promotional Board and
Additional Director General, Women and
Child Security Organization, Lucknow. The
said Committee submitted its report on
27.08.2021. On the basis of said report, a
written complaint was given by Sub
Inspector Daya Shankar Dwivedi at Police
Station Hazratganj, which is the basis of
the FIR in question registered against the
accused-applicant and co-accused.

10. Report of the two members
team on the basis of which the FIR in
question
has
been
registered
would
mention that Bharat Singh, father of the
accused-applicant gave an application on
03.03.2020 to S.S.P. Varanasi requesting
him to get further investigation conducted
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in FIR
No.548 of 2019 (supra) registered against
the accused-applicant.

11. Then, Senior Superintendent
of police, Varanasi marked the said
application to the then Circle Officer,
Bhelupur,
Mr.Amresh
Kumar
Singh.
Mr.Amresh Kumar Singh prepared a report
on the application and in last paragraph of
his report said that the FIR No.548 of 2019
(supra) was falsely lodged in conspiracy of
the prosecutrix, her friend, Satyam Prakash
Rai, Angad Rai and Vijay Shankar Tiwari
and recommended for fresh investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.