# Israr Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8877 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajeev Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/israr-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51417
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 353, 504, 447
& 153-B - Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1932 - Section - 7 - Application under Section
482 CrPC - seeking quashing of summoning
order, charge sheet, and entire criminal
proceedings - arising from FIR - alleged that,
AIMIM party members allegedly trespassed into
the police line premises to offer Namaz,
breaching established security protocols -
Investigation conducted - charge sheet filed -
cognizance taken - accused summoned - trial
initiated - instant application filed challenging
the proceedings on grounds of fabrication and
procedural irregularities - and in absence of
mandatory sanction under Section 153B IPC, the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was not
applicable in Pratapgarh jurisdiction - Court
observed that - (i) vide Gazette Notification
dated 19.06.1968 the provision of section 7 of
Act, 1932 are applicable in all districts of U.P.-
(ii) the police line is a high-security zone
housing vital infrastructure, where public access
is strictly regulated, - Held - (i) charge-sheet
was duly vetted and approved by an Inspector
functioning as Station House Officer - (ii) in
absence of independent witnesses or sanction
did not vitiate the proceedings, particularly in
light of ongoing investigation - hence, the
present application is misconceived and liable to
be dismissed - further directions issued to the
authorities to expedite further investigation and
submit a comprehensive report before the
competent court.
(Para - 13, 14, 16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

2 All. Israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
253
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
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."

37. Further the Apex Court has also laid
down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings could be interfered and quashed in
exercise of its power by the High Court in the
following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Bihar
Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iii)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005
SCC
(Cri.)
283
and
(iv)
Neeharika
Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd.
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

38. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs.
State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing
of the criminal proceedings is an exception than
a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court
itself envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the
Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the
court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very wide
but should be exercised very cautiously to do
real and substantial justice for which the court
alone exists.

39. Thus, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts and
circumstances, as narrated above and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned summoning
order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Complaint
Case No.83520 of 2021, under Section 138 N.I.
Act, Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow and
the entire proceeding are against the spirit and
directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and are liable to be set aside.

40.

Accordingly,
the
impugned
summoning order dated 22.07.2022 passed by
Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.10,
Lucknow in Complaint Case No.83520 of
2021, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station
P.G.I., District Lucknow and the entire
proceeding pending before the Presiding
Officer, Additional Court No.10, Lucknow is
hereby set aside and reversed and the matter is
remanded back to the trial court. Learned trial
court concerned is directed to pass a fresh order
within four months from today, keeping in view
the discussions/observations and judgments of
Hon'ble the Apex Court referred above.

41. For the reasons discussed above, the
instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed in respect of the instant applicants.

42. Learned Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the
trial court concerned for its necessary
compliance.
---------
(2024) 2 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8877 of 2023

Israr Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gyanendra Singh, Ajmal Khan, Javed Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 353, 504, 447
& 153-B - Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1932 - Section - 7 - Application under Section
482 CrPC - seeking quashing of summoning
order, charge sheet, and entire criminal
proceedings - arising from FIR - alleged that,
AIMIM party members allegedly trespassed into
the police line premises to offer Namaz,
breaching established security protocols -
Investigation conducted - charge sheet filed -
cognizance taken - accused summoned - trial
initiated - instant application filed challenging
the proceedings on grounds of fabrication and
procedural irregularities - and in absence of
mandatory sanction under Section 153B IPC, the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was not
applicable in Pratapgarh jurisdiction - Court
observed that - (i) vide Gazette Notification
dated 19.06.1968 the provision of section 7 of
Act, 1932 are applicable in all districts of U.P.-
(ii) the police line is a high-security zone
housing vital infrastructure, where public access
is strictly regulated, - Held - (i) charge-sheet
was duly vetted and approved by an Inspector
functioning as Station House Officer - (ii) in
absence of independent witnesses or sanction
did not vitiate the proceedings, particularly in
light of ongoing investigation - hence, the
present application is misconceived and liable to
be dismissed - further directions issued to the
authorities to expedite further investigation and
submit a comprehensive report before the
competent court.
(Para - 13, 14, 16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal - Supp (1) SCC
335,

2. Vikram Johar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- 2019 (14) SCC
207,

3. Manoj Rai & ors. Vs St. of M.P. - (1999) 1 SCC
728,

Smt. Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
& ors. - AIR 1976 SC 1947,

St. of Guj. Vs Girish Radhakrishnan Varde - (2014) 3
SCC 659,

Babubhai Vs St. of Guj. - (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 336,

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & ors. Vs Sambharao
Chandrojirao Angre & ors. - (1988) 1 SCC 692,

Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs St. of Mah. - 2002 (2) SCC
135,

Subhash Mishrilal Jain Vs Laxman Kondiba Aswar -
AIR OnLine 2021 BOM 4194.

Ataulla & anr. Vs Azim-Ullah & anr. - 1889 SCC
OnLine All 38.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri
Piyush Singh, learned A.G.A., Shri Shivendra
Singh Rathaur, learned State Law Officer

2. In pursuance of earlier order dated
12.12.2023, Shri Satyapal Antil, Superintendent
of Police, Pratapgarh is also present before this
Court.

3. Present application has been moved by
the applicant for quashing the summoning
order dated 22.01.2021 passed by C.J.M.,
Pratapgarh
and
charge
sheet
dated
15.03.2020 in Case Crime No.1019 of 2019
U/S 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and
Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act,
P.S.
Kotwali
Nagar,
District-
Pratapgarh as well as further proceedings
of Criminal Case No.2186 of 2021, State
Vs Israr Ahmad and Ors.
2 All. Israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
255

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the impugned proceeding
was initiated on the basis of concocted facts
and the charge sheet was submitted by the
Investigating
Officer
in
the
most
mechanical manner under Sections 332,
353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, ( for
short "Act, 1932). He further submitted that
provisions of Act, 1932 are not applicable
in district Pratapgarh as there is no
notification related to the implementation
of the aforesaid Act. He further submitted
that no sanction order was obtained from
the Competent Authority before filing of
the aforesaid charge sheet for the offence
under Section 153B I.P.C., which is
mandatory, on which the trial court has
taken cognizance without considering this
fact that neither the sanction was obtained
from the Competent Authority nor the
provisions of Act, 1932 are applicable in
the district in question. He vehemently
submitted that it was obligatory on the part
of the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order
at the time of taking cognizance.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the F.I.R. of case in question
was lodged by the informant, namely, Shri
Shailendra Singh, Reserved Inspector,
Police Line, P.S. Kotwali City, District-
Pratapgarh on 29.11.2019 at 22:13 hours
with the allegation that on 29.11.2019, at
about 12:00 Noon, when he was working as
Reserved Inspector, Police Line, Pratapgarh
and was doing his day-to-day work in his
office and adequate police security was
deployed at the main gate of the police line
as well as at different picket points in the
police line and there was standing order
that no any private person would be
allowed to enter into the police line without
adequate permission. However, on the said
date, Israr Ahmad S/o Hassan Mohammad,
R/o Sarauli, P.S. Khohandaur, District-
Pratapgarh, Jafrul Hassan, R/o Dahilamau,
P.S.- Kotwali City, District- Pratapgarh,
Sujjat Ulla, S/o Mobeen, R/o Rajapur,
Mufreed,
P.S.
Kandhai,
District-
Pratapgarh, all leaders of the AIMIM Party,
as well as other active members of
aforesaid party forcibly tried to enter into
the police line, when the guard tried to stop
them and the information was also flashed,
the informant along with his companion
officer Major Prem Narayan Mishra and
other police personnel immediately came to
the main gate, but the aforesaid persons and
some unknown persons tried to start
skirmish with the police personnel and
while interrupting in the duty of police
personnel and forcibly entered into the
police line campus by saying that they are
the members of Islamic Organization,
namely AIMIM and they would perform
Namaz in the Mosque situated in the
premises of the police line. Thereafter,
extra force was deployed then all the
aforesaid persons went away.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that during the course of
investigation, statements of informant as
well as other witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who are police
personnel. He further submitted that as per
the provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932, a
report must be submitted by the officer-incharge of a police station, but in the present
case, the Officer, who submitted the police
report/charge sheet, is not the officer-incharge.
He
also
submitted
that
the
Superintendent of Police, Pratagparh has
ordered for further investigation in the
present case only with the intention to fill
up the lacuna of the prosecution related to
the sanction. He next submitted that since
long time, the people working nearby the
police line are offering Namaz in the
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mosque situated in the police line campus
by taking necessary precautions. He
vehemently submitted that, as appropriate
sanction was not obtained, the entire
proceedings are liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant,
in support of his argument, relied upon
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal reported in Supp (1) SCC 335,
Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr. reported in 2019 (14) SCC 207,
Manoj Rai & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 728, Smt.
Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC
1947,
State
of
Gujarat
Vs.
Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3
SCC 659, Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 336,
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors.
Vs. Sambharao Chandrojirao Angre and
Ors. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692,
Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2002 (2) SCC 135
as well as decision of Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in Subhash Mishrilal Jain Vs. Laxman
Kondiba Aswar reported in AIR OnLine 2021
BOM 4194.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly
relying on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court in the case of Ataulla & Anr. Vs.
Azim-Ullah & Anr. reported in 1889 SCC
OnLine All 38 submitted that a mosque to be a
mosque at all must be a building dedicated to
God and not a building dedicated to God with a
reservation and in case, the mosque is situated
in the police line then the people should not be
deprived of offering the prayer of Jumma in the
said mosque.

9. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed
the prayer of applicant and submitted that the
mosque constructed in the police line premises
cannot be allowed to public for offering
Namaz/prayer, for the reason that arms and
ammunition of the police personnel are being
stored in Armory in the police line, moreover,
District Wireless Control Room is also situated
there and due to several other security reasons,
without appropriate permission, public at large
cannot be allowed to enter in the police line
campus. He further submitted that as per the
prosecution case, regularly, the Guards are
being deployed on the gates of the police line
and only with the permission of the guard, the
persons are being allowed to enter into the
premises. However, on the date of incident, the
accused persons forcibly tried to enter into the
police line by raising several slogans and also
making skirmish with the police personnel and
immediately, the Guard informed to the senior
officials, on which, Reserved Inspector, Police
Line came to the spot along with other police
personnel, but the accused persons misbehaved
with them and entered into the campus of the
police line, challenging the police personnel that
they would offer Namaz in the mosque situated
in the police line campus, as a result, law and
order was disturbed, thereafter, the extra force
was called and deployed, on which, the accused
persons ran away.

10. Learned A.G.A. also submitted
that merely on the ground that there was no
independent witness at the place of
incident, charge sheet cannot be quashed.
He further drew attention of the Court on
the Gazette Notification No.II-2568-CX-68
dated 19.06.1968 which clearly provides
that His Excellency, Hon'ble Governor was
pleased to direct in suppression of the
previous notification on the subject that the
provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932 shall
come into force in all districts of U.P. with
effect from the date of publication of the
Notification. In such circumstances, the
argument of learned counsel for the
2 All. Israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
257
applicant that the provisions of Act, 1932
are not applicable in District- Pratapgarh is
baseless.

11. Learned A.G.A. next submitted
that in the radius of 6km of police line, 60
mosques are situated and the mosque which
is situated in the police line is not allowed
for civilians due to security reasons, the
Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh has
also
taken
decision
for
further
investigation, therefore, entire charge sheet
cannot be quashed merely on the ground
that the sanction was not obtained for
Section 153 A IPC. He lastly submitted that
during the pendency of the trial, sanction
order can be placed before the trial court,
therefore,
charge
sheet
as
well
as
summoning order cannot be quashed.

12. Mr. Satypal Antil, Superintendent
of Police, Pratapgarh also informed that the
campus of police line is a sensitive place in
which Armory, District Wireless Control
Room and Cyber Control Room etc. are
situated and the accused persons forcibly
entered into the campus of police line by
interrupting the official duty of police
personnel. He also informed that further
investigation will be completed very soon
and report be submitted in Court.

13. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A., going through the contents
of application, statement of victim recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as other
relevant documents, it is evident from the
pleading
that
by
way
of
Gazette
Notification
dated
19.06.1968,
the
provisions of Section 7 of Act, 1932 are
applicable in all districts of Uttar Pradesh
with effect from the date of publication of
the notification in the Official Gazette, and
as the same has already been published in
the
Official
Gazette
on
19.06.1968,
therefore, the ground of applicant that the
provisions of Act, 1932 is not applicable
in the District Pratapgarh has no legs to
stand.

14. It is further evident from the
provisions of Act, 1932 read with the
provisions of Cr.P.C. that the investigation
of the case in question was conducted by
Sub-Inspector, Chandra Shekhar Singh and
prepared the report which was approved by
Shri Surendra Nath Singh, Inpector at the
time of forwarding to the concerned Court.
It is also admitted by the learned counsel
for the applicant that the Inspectors are
being appointed as SHO and in the present
case, the Inspector has approved the charge
sheet, therefore, the ground argued by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the
charge sheet was not forwarded by the
S.H.O. is also irrelevant. It is also evident
from the pleading filed by the learned
A.G.A. that the Superintendent of Police,
Pratapgarh
has
decided
for
further
investigation of the case in question, and he
himself informed to this Court that he will
take all care and precautions for further
investigation of the case in question in just
and fair manner. In such circumstances,
merely on the ground that the sanction was
not taken by the Investigating Officer from
the competent authority and submitted
charge sheet to the Court concerned, on
which, Court has taken cognizance, charge
sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be
said to be bad in the eyes of law, therefore,
this Court is of the view that the present
application is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed. Moreover, this Court is also of
the view that the campus of police line is a
sensitive place where Armory, District
Wireless Control Room and Cyber Control
Room, etc. are situated, therefore, public at
large should not be allowed in the premises
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without valid permission of Superintendent
of Police of the District.

15. In view of the above, the present
application stands dismissed.

16.

Superintendent
of
Police,
Pratapgarh is directed to ensure that the
further investigation of the case in question
be completed as early as possible and
submit a report before the Court concerned.

17. Senior Registrar of this Court is
directed to communicate this order to
Principal Secretary, Government of U.P.
and Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh
for necessary action, forthwith.
---------
(2024) 2 ILRA 258
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12826 of 2023

Shashank Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Saurabh Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(i) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 125 & 482 -
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(f), 12
& 12(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-
Sections 5(v), 11, 12 & 13-B - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 376, 406 &
498-A - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
challenging the legality and validity of the
impugned order - whereby the application filed
by the applicant seeking dismissal of the
complaint case u/section 12 of DV Act was
rejected - Marriage between applicant no. 1 and
opposite party no. 2 solemnized in May, 2018 -
matrimonial dispute arose - Suit u/sections 11 &
12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted in 2019 -
decree passed ex-parte in March, 2021 -
marriage was declared null and void in in March,
2021 - Suit for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
instituted in year 2019 - dismissed in April, 2023
- meanwhile, opposite party no. 2 filed a
Complaint case u/section 12 of the DV Act in
September, 2021 - opposed by applicant -
applicant filed an application questioning the
maintainability of the DV complaint - application
rejected - hence, present Application - question
of maintainability of complaint under DV Act -
contention raised that since marriage was
declared null and void, opposite party no. 2
ceased to be an "aggrieved person" under the DV
Act - however, court observed that on the date
of filing of the complaint, the marriage was
subsisting - and applicant did not dispute the
factum of marriage or the domestic relationship
with opposite party no. 2 - parties lived together
in a domestic relationship prior to separation -
therefore, relationship in the nature of marriage
existed till the decree of nullity - opposite party
no. 2 falls within the ambit of "aggrieved person"
and "domestic relationship" as defined under the
DV Act - Held - opposite party no. 2 is entitled to
invoke provisions of Section 12 of the DV Act -
complaint is maintainable - no merit found in the
preliminary objection raised by the applicant -
accordingly, Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
(Para - 28, 29, 30, 31)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Amit Agarwal Vs Sanjay Aggarwal, (2016) SCC
OnLine P&H 4200,

2. Dhanraj Vs Shalini, (2017) SCC OnLine Bom
7671,

3. Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs St. of Punj., (2011)
12 SCC 588,