# Jawahar Lal Vats Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 518
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3981 of 2011
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jawahar-lal-vats-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51190
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
Arvind Srivastava, Brijesh Sahai (Sr. Adv.), C.P.
Upadhyaya, Pranshu Gupta, Santosh Tripathi,
Siddharth Singhal, Vinay Arora

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 397- Revision against the order
passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the
withdrawal application moved by the Assistant
Prosecuting
Officer
thereby
consenting
withdrawal from the prosecution of accusedopposite party in a criminal case u/s 321 Cr.P.C.
The jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is a
very limited one, the illegality, propriety or
correctness of the order passed by learned court
below, is they very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the
jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a
palpable
error,
noncompliance
with
the
provisions of law and the decision is completely
erroneous or where is the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. (Para 68 & 71)

Revision dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 66,861. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documentary as well as oral evidence
available on record, we arrive at a
conclusion that the prosecution has failed
to establish that at the time of incident there
was sufficient source of light in which the
witnesses
identified
the
appellants,
committing the murder of four persons. The
theory
of
prosecution
that
witnesses
identified the appellants in the torch light is
not proved on the basis of the appreciation
of the evidence of these witnesses. The
alleged torches were not produced before
the trial Court at the time of evidence of the
eyewitnesses by the witnesses and the
Investigating Officer, either. The existence
of lantern and bulb, as source of light, is
not
substantiated
by
any
evidence.
Therefore,
the
identification
of
the
appellants by the witnesses, committing the
murder of Santosh, Dinesh, Zalim Singh
and Kunwar Singh is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The recovery of firearm
weapons and cartridges is also not
substantiated with the forensic laboratory
report and in view of the testimony of the
witnesses. The independent witnesses of
such recovery were not produced during
trial. It would be imperative to mention
here that other eyewitnesses, Punji, Pappu,
Sukhveer, Om Prakash were Singhveer
were not produced by the prosecution. The
documentary evidence filed as defence
evidence by the appellants appears to be a
strong reason than the motive attributed to
the appellants to commit the murder of the
deceased. We find substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the deceased were done to
death by some unknown persons and not by
the appellants.

125.

For
the
reasons
and
discussions held above, these appeals
succeed and are allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 30.6.2007 passed
by the then Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Court No.20, Bulandshahr, in
Sessions Trial No.625 of 2004 (State vs.
Veda @ Vedpal and 8 others), arising out of
Crime No.252 of 2004, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, Sessions Trial
No.766 of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh) arising
out of Crime No.261 of 2004, under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sessions Trial
No.1138 of 2004 (State vs. Veda @ Vedpal)
arising out of Crime No.253 of 2004, under
Section 25 Arms Act, Sessions Trial
No.1139 of 2004 (State vs. Babloo @
Balua) arising out of Crime No.254 of
2004, under Section 25 Arms Act, Sessions
Trial No.1141 of 2004 (State vs. Pyare)
arising out of Crime No.266 of 2004, under
Section 25 Arms Act and Sessions Trial
No.1142 of 2004 (State vs. Ganga) arising
out of Crime No.267 of 2004, under
Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Debai,
District Bulandshahr, is set aside. The
appellants are reported to be in prison.
They shall be set at liberty, forthwith,
unless they are wanted in any other case,
subject to compliance of Section 437A Cr
PC.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 518
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3981 of 2011

Jawahar Lal Vats ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sunil Vasishta, Sushil Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
Arvind Srivastava, Brijesh Sahai (Sr. Adv.), C.P.
Upadhyaya, Pranshu Gupta, Santosh Tripathi,
Siddharth Singhal, Vinay Arora

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 397- Revision against the order
passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the
withdrawal application moved by the Assistant
Prosecuting
Officer
thereby
consenting
withdrawal from the prosecution of accusedopposite party in a criminal case u/s 321 Cr.P.C.
The jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is a
very limited one, the illegality, propriety or
correctness of the order passed by learned court
below, is they very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the
jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a
palpable
error,
noncompliance
with
the
provisions of law and the decision is completely
erroneous or where is the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. (Para 68 & 71)

Revision dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sheonandan Paswan Vs St. of Bihar,
1987(1)SCC 288

2.
M.N.
Sankarayarayanan
Nair
Vs
P.B.
Balakrishnan 1972 (1) SCC 318

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

4. Chandra Babu Vs State, (2015) 8 SCC 774

5. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762

6. Ashish Chadha Vs Smt. Asha Kumari & anr.,
AIR 2012 SC 431

7. Hari Prakash Kasana Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (5)
ALJ 750 (AII)

8. Nawal Kishor Gupta Vs St. of U.P., 2010 (5)
ALJ 338 (AII)

9. Malti Vs St. of U.P., 2000 CrLJ 4170 (AII)

10. Iqram Vs St. of U.P. 1988(2) crimes 414
(AII)

11. Johar Vs Mangal Prasad, AIR 2008 SC 1165

12. St. farm Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs Nijjer Agro
Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502

13. St. of Maharashtra Vs Jag Mohan Singh
Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC)

14. Munna Devi Vs St. of Raj., AIR 2002 SC 107

15. Smt. Sheela Devi Vs Munnalal, 2000 (41)
ACC 158 (Allahabad)

16. Ganga Prasad Vs St. of U.P., 2000 (40) ACC
761 (Allahabad)

17. Sachidanand Singh Vs St. of U.P., 1999(39)
ACC 681 (AII)

18. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs Keshvanand,
1998 (30) ACC 275 (SC)

19. Jamuna Vs St. of U.P., 1997 (2) AWC 959
(Allahabad)

20. Akhlak Ahmad Vs Vahid Ali Ansari, 1987 (24)
ACC 544 (AII)

21. Dulichand Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1975
SC 1960

22. St. of T.N. Vs Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9
SCC 294

23. Shamima Farooqi Vs Shahid Khan, (2015) 5
SCC 705

24. Smt. Savitri Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2014 (84)
ACC 81 (AII)

25. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke & others, (2015) 3 SCC 123.

26. Susanta Dey Vs Babli Majumdar, AIR 2019
SC 1661

27. Ssangyong Engineering and Construction
Co. Ltd.Vs National Highways Authority of India
(NHA) IRONLINE 2019 SC 329

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,
J.)
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned
counsel for revisionist, Sri Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and Sri Rajarshi Gupta assisted
by Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsels on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 as well as
learned AGA for the State.

Prayer

2. The instant revision has been
preferred with a prayer to allow the
revision and set aside the impugned order
dated 6.9.2011 passed by Ld. ACJM IV th,
Meerut in Case No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307
IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State
Vs. Sanjai Bansal & other) whereby the
learned
Magistrate
has
allowed
the
withdrawal application dated 7.5.2010
moved by the Ld. Assistant Prosecuting
Officer thereby consenting withdrawal
from the prosecution of accused-opposite
party nos. 2 &3 in aforesaid criminal case
u/s 321 Cr.P.C.

It is also prayed to consequently
direct
the
learned
Magistrate
to
expeditiously proceed with the trial of the
aforesaid case against the accused persons
and conclude the same within a period of
time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit &
proper to direct, otherwise the revisionists
shall suffer irreparable loss.

And by way of interim measure, it
is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to stay the operation &
effect of impugned order dated 6.9.2011
passed by Ld. ACJM IV th, Meerut in Case
No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC, PS
Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs.
Sanjai Bansal & other), during the
pendency of this criminal revision before
this Court.

Brief facts
3. It is the case of the revisionist
that on 30.3.2006 at about 10:00 AM, the
accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 namely
'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal' along with one
unidentified accused person had committed
assault by firing upon the revisionist no. 2
as a result of which he received serious
firearm injuries on his chest. He was
immediately taken to nearby 'Lokpriya
Hospital' where at he was admitted at
around
10:30 AM
and
subsequently
operated upon by the doctors. Revisionist
no. 1 i.e. father of the injured-revisionist
no. 2, since did not know them before as
such he lodged FIR at 11:15 AM at PS
Nauchandi in respect of aforesaid incident
against 3 unknown accused persons. The
said FIR was registered as Case Crime no.
147 of 2006 u/s 307 IPC and verbatim
whereof is quoted here-under :-

"नकल तहरीर नहन्दी वादी
सेवा में,
श्रीमान र्थानाध्यक्ष
र्थाना नौचन्दी, मेरठ।
महोदय,
ननवेदन है नक प्रार्थी सुबह लगभग 10.00
बजे अपने घर के बाहर सड़क पर बाहर जाने के नलए
खड़ा र्था तर्था अपने बेटे धनन्जय जो मनन्दर से आने
वाला र्था का इन्तजार कर रहा र्था। तभी गली के मोड़
पर मेरा पुत्र स्कूटर से आया तभी तीन अज्ञात हमलावरो
ने यह कहते हुये नक साला बहुत मुकदमे बाजी करता है
अपने हार्थो मे नलए कट्टो से मेरे पुत्र को जान से मारने
की ननयत से गोनलया मार दी हमलावरो को मै सामने
आने पर पहचान सकता ह ं मेरे शोर मचाने पर वहाूँ
काफी लोग आ गये तर्था बदमाशो को ललकारने पर
हमलावर भाग गये। कृपया मेरी ररपोटय नलखकर कानूनी
काययवाही करने की कृपा करे। प्रार्थी sd/- श्री जवाहर
लाल वत्स s/o स्व० श्री दुगाय प्रसाद r/o 18/14 ,
राजेन्र नगर, PS नौचंदी, मेरठ नदनांक 30.3.06
नोट- मै c/c 1506 रनधीर नसंह प्रमानणत
करता ह ूँ नक नकल तहरीर नहन्दी वादी र्थाना हाजा की
नचक पुश्त पर शब्द व शब्द अंनकत की गई।"
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
4.

Subsequently,
when
on
10.04.2006 for the first time, the injuredrevisionist no. 2 was examined by the
Investigating Officer (in short 'the IO') of
the said case, he revealed the name of
'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal (i.e. accusedopposite party nos. 2 & 3) as the assailants
who along with one unidentified accused
person had assaulted him on the day of
incident by firing upon him. It is thereafter
that both of them became accused in the
Case Crime No. 147 of 2006.

5. Both the accused took the plea
of alibi before the IO and finally the IO
submitted the final report no. 32 of 2006 on
20.10.2006 in the said case thereby
exonerating the aforesaid accused persons
from the case. When the said final report
reached in the court of learned JM IIIrd,
Meerut on 12.12.2006, a Criminal Misc.
Case no. 1331/11 of 2006 in his court was
registered for judicial disposal of said FR
and
learned
Magistrate
directed
for
issuance of notice to the informantrevisionist no. 2 for making protest.

6. Meanwhile, an order came to be
passed on 16.03.2007 by a Division bench
of this Court in a pending Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 13182 of 2006 which had
been filed by the informant-revisionist no.
2 before for seeking direction to the local
police for proper & effective investigation
of Case Crime no. 147 of 2006 under
Section 307 IPC PS Nauchandi, District
Meerut. In the said order, this Court had
directed the informant-revisionist no. 1 to
approach the court of learned Magistrate
for making protest against the submission
of FR in his case.

7. Informant-revisionist no. 2
appeared and filed his protest petition along
with his affidavit on 04.04.2007 against the
submission of the FR in the said case and
through the petition, it was submitted by
the informant-revisionist no. 2 that the
conclusion drawn by the IO of the said case
in the FR was illegal and patently absurd
inasmuch as he could not have accepted the
plea of alibi for exonerating the accused
persons which was the domain of judicial
appreciation only after receiving legal
evidence in trial and when statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C of revisionist no. 2 was
clearly revealing commission of offence
under Section 307 IPC against those
accused persons, therefore there was
sufficient prosecution material to reject the
FR and summon them to face prosecution
before the court.

8. Thereafter, on 16.04.2007,
learned Magistrate rejected the above said
FR
thereby
summoning
the
accused
persons to face prosecution before him.
However, meanwhile, the accused persons
had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by
filing a SLP No. 2364 of 2007 (which was
later converted to regular 'Criminal Appeal
No. 1453 of 2007') in challenge of the
order dated 16.3.2007 passed by this Court
on the writ petition of the informantrevisionist no. 1. The said SLP was
admitted and later Hon'ble Supreme Court
by its order & judgment dated 22.10.2007
set aside both the orders passed by this
Court and and also the summoning order
dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned
Magistrate. In fact, the operative portion of
the order dated 16.03.2007 of this Court
was taken to be objectionable by Hon'ble
Supreme Court since in its view the same
was likely to prevent the learned Magistrate
to apply his independent judicial mind
while deciding the Final Report submitted
against the accused persons. Therefore, by
upsetting the orders, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court finally remanded the matter back to
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned Magistrate for deciding the
Final Report in accordance with applicable
law as interpreted and guided for him in the
body of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

9. On 04.11.2007, the informantrevisionist no. 1 himself filed certified copy
of the above said order dated 22.10.2007
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court before
the learned Magistrate. As the territorial
jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate
had changed, hence the Criminal Misc.
Case No. 1331/11 of 2006 registered
previously in the court of Ld JM IIIrd was
allotted fresh No. as 'Criminal Misc. Case
No. 3309/9 of 2007' in the court of Ld JM
Ist, Meerut for disposal of FR case and
protest petition filed by the informantrevisionist no. 1.

10. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that while the judicial
proceedings in respect of disposal of FR
and protest petition thereon were going on
in the court of learned Magistrate, the
informant-revisionist no. 1 discovered that
on his previous complaint against the
Investigating Officer of the case for helping
the accused persons in fabricating &
supporting
their
plea
of
alibi,
a
departmental enquiry had been ordered and
on 19.11.2007, the enquiry officer i.e. SP
City Meerut had already submitted his
enquiry report finding these Investigating
Officers guilty in not properly investigating
the
case
and
had
recommended
departmental punitive action against them
and also that in an another enquiry
conducted by the 'Deputy CMO, Rampur'
against the Medical Staff & Doctors of
CHC, Milak, Rampur who had helped
accused 'Sanjay Bansal' in fabricating his
admission into said CHC on 29.03.2006 i.e.
a day prior to date of incident, the said staff
& doctor have been found to be guilty of
fabricating the medical record in order to
show the admission of accused. Therefore,
the informant-revisionist no. 1 through his
letter dated 28.01.2008 prayed before
'DIG,
Meerut
Range,
Meerut'
for
recommending further investigating into
the instant case by drawing his attention to
aforesaid enquiry reports, which had
strengthen
his
case
against
accused
persons.

11. The IO who undertook further
investigation concluded with the previous
observations made in the case by different
Investigating Officers that the accused
persons were not present at the place of
occurrence as their alibi was established
and that they have been falsely implicated
by the injured-injured revisionist no. 1.
Besides aforesaid conclusions, the IO also
forwarded and submitted his complaint
dated 28.04.2008, in the court of learned
Magistrate dealing with FR case, against
the informant 'Jawahar Lal Vats' and his
injured son Dhananjay seeking their
prosecution under Section 211 IPC for
allegedly filing false criminal case against
the innocent accused persons namely
'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal'.

12. On the other hand, the father of
the accused-opposite party no. 2 & 3
namely
'R.K.
Gupta'
himself
on
28.08.2008 approached 'Secretary Home,
UP Govt Lucknow' and filed before him his
written complaint narrating therein that his
sons namely 'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal' were
falsely implicated by the revisionists by
lodging false FIR. However, since their acts
also amount to an offence as defined under
Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC as such the
local police be directed to lodge NCR in
those sections against them and investigate
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523
the same after seeking formal judicial
permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C.

13. The said complaint of R.K.
Gupta reached later before SHO, PS
Nauchandi through proper channel and
whereafter on his direction, surprisingly
and quite illegally, an FIR under Section
154 Cr.P.C on 20.09.2008 was registered
giving rise to 'Case Crime no. 467 of 2008
under Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC, PS
Nauchandi, Meerut against the revisionists.

14. The Investigating Officer who
was entrusted with investigation of Case
Crime no. 467 of 2008 noticed that the FIR
of said case could not have been registered
under Section 154 Cr.P.C as none of the
aforesaid
offence
were
cognizable
resultantly the said IO on 24.09.2008
stopped the investigation by noticing the
aforesaid discrepancy and observed that a
formal judicial permission in terms of
Section 155(2) Cr.P.C was needed to
undertake any investigation in such cases.

15. Thereafter on 24.09.2008,
R.K.Gupta, laid another application before
SSP, Meerut praying therein that as his FIR
has been wrongly registered for noncognizable offences, which can only be
investigated after seeking formal judicial
permission in terms of Section 155(2)
Cr.P.C and as such the local police be
directed to approach the court of learned
Magistrate
for
moving
and
seeking
aforesaid permission so that his case can be
investigated.

16. Learned counsel for revisionist
submitted
that
on
the
above
said
application dated 24.09.2008, the SHO of
PS Nauchandi directed the IO namely 'SI
Kamal Singh' to do needful yet the said IO
did not moved any such application in the
court of learned Magistrate for seeking
formal judicial permission in terms of
Section 155(2) Cr.P.C which he was sure
was not likely to be granted as the learned
Magistrate was already in the process of
deciding judicially the FR submitted by the
police, therefore, it appears that the said
R.K.Gupta
acting
under
some
tacit
understanding with the IO of the case,
moved
yet
another
application
on
18.11.2008 before the SSP, Meerut with the
allegations
that
the
IO
was
not
investigating his case properly. On the said
application, the SSP, Meerut without
ascertaining true facts of the case passed an
order on 18.11.2008 itself directing SHO,
PS Nauchandi to take stern steps against
the accused of the case instituted by Mr.
R.K.Gupta.

17. The investigation of the above
said FIR lodged against the revisionists
continued and charge sheet no. 2 of 2009
dated 06.01.2009 was submitted in the
court of learned ACJM Ist, Meerut for
seeking their prosecution.

18. Learned counsel for the
revisionist submitted that the learned
Magistrate quite illegally and ignoring the
statutory bar as provided under Section
195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C took cognizance of the
offences on the basis of the police charge
sheet under Sections 211, 195, 389, 120-B
IPC submitted against the revisionists by
his
order
dated
07.01.2009
thereby
summoned them to face prosecution after
registering against them formal proceeding
of Criminal Case no. 677 of 2009 under
Sections 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC, PS
Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs.
Jawahar Lal Vats & other).

19. On the other hand, the
proceedings regarding disposal of FR
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted
in
case
instituted
by
the
revisionist no. 1 was still pending therefore,
he approached this Court and filed
'Criminal Misc. 482-Application No. 648
of 2009' seeking direction for learned
Magistrate to decide & dispose of the
matter relating to protest petition filed
against Final Report No. 32/06 dated
20.10.2006
pending
before
him
expeditiously as the same was pending
disposal even after the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 22.10.2007 passed in
the said case. Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court
vide
order
dated
23.01.2009,
disposed of the said 482-Application of the
revisionist no.1 by directing the learned
Magistrate to decide within two weeks the
protest petition in relation to FR case.

20. Subsequently, even though
Mr.R.K.Gupta, did not have any locus in
the case pertaining to protest petition
against the above said FR yet they filed an
Impleadment Application No. 28576 of
2009 in the above said 'Criminal Misc.
482-Application No. 648 of 2009 (which
was already decided on 23.01.2009 before
this Court seeking modification of said
order
dated
23.01.2009.
On
his
Impleadment Application, this Court passed
an
order
on
05.02.2009
disallowing
impleadment however it also directed the
concerned Magistrate to club both the cases
i.e. the case of protest petition pertaining to
challenge the FR filed by the informantrevisionist no.1 and also the case under
Section 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC which
was also pending in the same court.

21. Finally, learned Magistrate (i.e.
ACJM IV th, Meerut) summoned the
record of 'Criminal Case No. 677 of 2009
under Sections, 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC
also before him while deciding the
proceedings related to disposal of FR
submitted in Case Crime No. 147 of 2006
and protest petition thereon (i.e. Criminal
Misc. Case No. 701 of 2008, which were
renumbered in his court) and thereafter, the
learned Magistrate by his order dated
11.02.2009 disagreed with the conclusions
drawn by the police while submitting FR
No. 32 of 2006 dated 20.10.2006 in
connection with Case Crime no. 147/06
under Section 307 IPC and took cognizance
of offence against the accused persons
namely 'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal' by
summoning them to face prosecution of
said case in his court.

22. Meanwhile both the accused
persons namely 'Sanjay & Ajay Bansal'
approached this Court in challenge of the
summoning order dated 11.02.2009 passed
against them by learned Magistrate by
filing 'Criminal Misc. 482-Application
Nos. 4983 & 6068 of 2009' in which, this
Court issued notices to the revisionist no. 1
and as an interim measure provided that no
coercive steps be taken against them.

23. On the other hand, the
revisionists also approached this Court to
challenge the criminal proceedings initiated
against them by the learned Magistrate on
the criminal case lodged by Mr. R.K.Gupta
by filing 'Criminal Misc. 482-Application
Nos. 8882 of 2009' in which this Court also
directed for not taking any coercive steps
against them as an interim measure and all
the 482-applications i.e. filed by accusedopposite party nos. 2 & 3 and other filed by
the revisionist were directed to be clubbed
together for final hearing.

24. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further submitted that opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 some how managed to
persuade the Government officials to
withdraw the prosecution pending against
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
525
them and the State Government vide its
letter
No.
724/WC/7-Nyay-5-2009202/WC/2009
dated
28.1.2010
communicated to the District Magistrate,
Meerut their permission for withdrawal of
prosecution against the accused-opposite
party nos. 2 & 3 in the instant case. Where
after, the District Magistrate communicated
the aforesaid permission, through proper
channel to the learned APO in charge of
prosecution case against the accusedopposite party nos. 2 & 3 pending in the
court of the then learned ACJM Ist, Meerut
and finally, on 07.05.2010, learned APO
moved his application seeking withdrawal
of prosecution. Against the above said
withdrawal application, the revisionists had
filed
their
written
objections
on
04.06.2010. Whereafter the hearing of
withdrawal application was taken up by the
learned ACJM IV th, Meerut who was of
clear opinion that the learned APO has not
applied his independent mind over the facts
and circumstances of the case and had
moved withdrawal application by merely
following dictate of State Government. The
learned Magistrate was also of the opinion
that the learned APO has not apprised him
of any legal ground in support of
withdrawal from prosecution. All these
findings of learned Magistrate were clearly
noted by him in his order dated 06.01.2011
passed
during
consideration
of
said
withdrawal application. By the said order,
learned Magistrate asked learned APO to
apprise him of his clear stand over the
matter. Again on 17.08.2011, learned
Magistrate again passed a similar order as
passed on dated 06.01.2011.

25. In response to the above said
orders passed by the learned Magistrate,
learned APO filed another application on
29.08.2011 purporting to be supplemental
to his withdrawal application and the
revisionists
filed
their
supplementary
objections on the same day.

26. Finally, learned Magistrate by
his impugned order dated 06.09.2011
allowed the withdrawal application moved
by learned APO and accorded his judicial
consent to withdrawal from prosecution of
the instant case pending against accusedopposite party nos. 2 & 3.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
revisionists

27. Main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for revisionist is that on
the strength of the interpretation of law
governing Section 321 Cr.P.C as enunciated
by Hon'ble Supreme Court and cited by the
revisionist in support of his contention
before this Court what transpires is that in
judging validity of the impugned order
passed by learned Magistrate permitting
withdrawal of prosecution in the instant
case, this Court has to examine objectively
whether
the
learned
Magistrate,
on
consideration of material placed before him
and having regard to application for
withdrawal of prosecution moved by
learned APO has accorded its consent on
judicial consideration and in that process of
consideration whether of not, he has
correctly examined following twin judicial
conditions:-

1. Whether while moving
for withdrawal of prosecution, the
learned APO has himself applied
its independent mind or was
influenced by the order of State
Government?
2. Whether grounds put
forth by the learned APO in his
application seeking withdrawal of
prosecution were serving any
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public cause of justice or were
germane to advancement of public
justice?
3. Whether the learned
Magistrate in granting his consent
to withdrawal of prosecution has
correctly
deliberated
and
examined on legitimacy of those
two grounds?

28. Learned counsel for the
revisionist submitted that there was no
independent application of mind by learned
APO while moving withdrawal application
inasmuch as-

Firstly-
he
failed
to
objectively assess the material of
the cases in arriving over his reason
as
to
how
withdrawal
of
prosecution in the instant case was
going to advance the cause of
public justice.
Secondly-
despite
observations made by the learned
Magistrate himself on previous two
occasions in the same case and over
the same withdrawal application
vide his orders dated 6.1.2011 &
17.8.2011 to effect that learned
APO had not assigned any legal
grounds on which the consent for
withdrawal from prosecution in
terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C could
be granted, the learned APO further
failed to assign any legal grounds
or cause for withdrawal from
prosecution
through
his
supplementary
withdrawal
application dated 29.08.2011. Thus,
the learned Magistrate in granting
its consent to withdrawal has
clearly committed error of law &
fact
both
thereby
improperly
exercising his supervisory judicial
function in terms of Sections 321
Cr.P.C.
Thirdly- at the time when
learned APO had moved his very
first application seeking withdrawal
of prosecution (i.e. on 7.5.2010) the
impugned
criminal
proceedings
against the accused persons were
already stayed by the interim order
dated 16.4.2009 passed by this
Court on their 482-Application and
thus, he ought to have disclosed
this fact having important bearing
on the case in his said application.
Non-discloser of said fact reveals
that the learned APO was selective
in laying facts before the learned
Magistrate and thus there was no
independent application of mind by
him.
Fourthly-
whereas
the
learned APO in his application for
withdrawal of prosecution stated
that final report in the criminal case
was filed by the police even after
further investigation and that police
had filed a challan against the
informant and injured of case
seeking
launch
of
prosecution
against them under Section 211 IPC
but what he mischievously and
deliberately fails to inform the
learned
Magistrate
though
his
application was the fact that the FR
against the accused Bansal brothers
has already been rejected by the
very court of learned Magistrate
vide his order dated 11.2.2009 who
had found more than prima-facie
case for trial against them and that
they had been summoned to face
prosecution
in
that
court.
Suppression of such a material and
relevant fact having bearing on
outcome of judicial consideration
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
over withdrawal of prosecution was
pointer
to
non-application
of
independent mind by the learned
APO in his application and ought to
have been so noticed by learned
Magistrate
while
considering
granted of his informed consent in
terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C in the
instant case.
Fifthly- Had there been
independent assessment of relevant
material made by the learned APO he
sure, as being himself possessed with
the judicial trained mind, would have
noticed that the very foundation of
the FIR (dated 20.9.2008 in Re: Case
Crime No. 467 of 2008 under
Section 211, 195, 120-B IPC) based
upon which the withdrawal of
prosecution of case of Section 307
IPC against the accused Bansal
brothers was being sought was in
fact, lodged against them on the
written complaint of father of the
accused persons (i.e. Bansal brother)
and the same was clearly motivated
and lodged by the police illegally
that too for non-cognizable offences
as defined under Sections 211, 195,
120-B IPC, which was clearly
designed to pressurize & intimidate
them. Thus, by suppressing the
relevant facts, the learned APO was
clearly not acting in good faith or in
public interest while seeking consent
of
the
court
in
withdrawal
prosecution against accused persons
involved in case of Section 307 IPC
and the learned Magistrate also failed
to take note of those relevant facts in
according his judicial consent to
withdrawal.

Sixthly-
No
objective
assessment or consideration of
prosecution of material of case
relating to the FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 467 of 2008 under
Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC was
made by the Ld APO and set out in
his application seeking withdrawal
of prosecution against the accused
Bansal brothers. No reason were
stated as to how, on the basis of his
consideration of that material, he is
able to state that the case against
the
accused
Bansal
brothers
relating to offence of Section 307
IPC can be legitimately said to be
false even before any judicial
verdict by any criminal court is
given
after
appreciating
the
evidence thereon. More so, he also
failed to take note of the fact that
collection
of
electronic
evidence/video recording in form
of
sting
operation
allegedly
conducted by some tainted media
person
wherein
the
injured
Dhananjay was claimed to have
confessed before said media person
that accused Bansal brothers were
not
involved,
was
completely
tainted and suspicious and was
procured, in all likelihood, by these
accused themselves after designing
the episode with the help of such
media
person.
The
noticeable
discrepancies in illegally seizing
the CD and Camera and sending
those to forensic laboratory after
fabricating the judicial order of
concerned Magistrate have all been
revealed to the learned APO had he
carefully perused the material of
aforesaid FIR of Case Crime no.
467 of 2008. Apart from all, a
careful perusal of typed transcript
of
the
alleged
conversation
recorded between the injured and
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the so called unverified media
person will go to reveal that at no
point of time in entire conversation
that the injured had stated for
himself that the accused Bansal
brothers were not his assailants.

29. The instant was an ordinary
criminal case involving commission of
offence under Section 307 IPC wherein duo
accused persons are accused of firing shots
upon injured by fire arms thereby causing
on his chest and the grievous fire arms
injuries and therefore, withdrawal of
prosecution of this case involving conflict
of interest between two individuals was in
no possible way going to advance cause of
public justice. Withdrawal was therefore
clearly
with
oblique
motive
and
unconnected with the vindication of cause
of
any
public
justice.
The
learned
Magistrate thus failed to notice that there
was no legitimacy urged in support of
withdrawal of prosecution and it was
designed merely as tool of thwarting or
shifting the course of law or cause manifest
injustice. He, in passing the impugned
order, ignored the fact that the learned APO
was improperly exercising his executive
function in seeking withdrawal from the
prosecution in a case involving serious
offence of Section 307 IPC, which was
clearly an attempt to interfere with the
normal course of justice with object to
favour accused persons who were wealthy,
rich and influential enjoying political
patronage. The judicial consent granted by
the
learned
Magistrate
is
therefore
completely fallacious in law. The impugned
order is likely to be revised and interfered
by this Court on this sole ground of law
itself.

30. Learned counsel for the
revisionist for substantiating his arguments
relied upon certain judgments which are as
under:

1. MN Sankarayaranan Nair
Vs. PV Balakrishnan & ors. (1972) 1
SCC 318
2. Bansi Lal Vs. Chandan
Lal & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 421
3. State of Orissa Vs.
Chandrika Mohapatra & Ors. (1976)
4 SCC 250
4. Balwant Singh & ors. Vs.
State of Bihar (1977) 4 SCC 448
5. Abdul Karim & ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka & ors. (2000) 8
SCC 710
6.
Rahul
Agarwal
Vs.
Rakesh Jain & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC
377
7. Bairam Muralidhar Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 10
SCC 380
8. Hardeep Singh Vs. State
of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
9. HS Bains Vs. State (Union
Territory of Chandigarh) (1980) 4
SCC 631
10. Rajendra Singh Vs. State
of Punjab (2007) 7 SCC 378
11. Abdul Rehman & Ors.
Vs. KM Anees-ul-Haq (2011) 10 SCC
696
12. Issac Isanga Musumba
& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 357
13.
Dhananjay
@
Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 768
14. Ramjee Singh Vs. State
of Bihar (1987) CrLJ 137
15. Sudha Tripathi Vs. State
of MP & Anr. (2019) CrLJ 3993.

Submission on behalf of State
10 All. Jawahar Lal Vats Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529
31. Learned AGA rebutted the
stand taken up by learned counsel for
revisionist and argued that after registration
of FIR of Crime no. 147 of 2006, the matter
was investigated properly and thoroughly
and after conducting investigation the
Investigating
Officer
found
that
the
involvement of Sanjay Bansal and Ajay
Bansal is false whose name was figured by
the injured Dhananjay Vats in his statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and
after completion of investigation the final
report was submitted. It is also important to
mention here that during the course of
investigation, investigation was transferred
to various Investigating Officer by the
Senior Superintendent of Police on basis of
complaint made by the complainant but
none of the Investigating Officer has found
any evidence against Sanjay Bansal and
Ajay Bansal.

32. It is also submitted that it is
totally wrong to say that the Investigating
Officer has wrongly made the accused to
Dhananjay Vats and Jawahar Lal Vats. In fact,
the matter was investigated and after
collecting the material evidence charge sheet
was submitted in Court and the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance on the said
charge sheet against the accused persons.

33. It is submitted that impugned
order dated 06.09.2011 is fully justified and
requires no interference.

Submission on behalf of opposite
party nos. 2 and 3.

34. Learned counsels for the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 put forward his
arguments as under:

35. The conspectus of the matter is
that it relates to false implication of Sanjay
Bansal and Ajay Bansal (both sons of R.K.
Gupta,
Chairman
of
IAMR
College
affiliated to CCS University, Meerut) by
the Revisionists in this matter (namely,
Jawahar Lal Vats, Lecturer in NAS College,
Meerut affiliated to CCS University,
Meerut and his son Dhananjay Vats, who
was terminated by the opposite parties from
his service as Lecturer from their IAMR
College in 2005, as his appointment
required approval by Vice Chancellor).

36. Unfortunately, the revisionist
no. 2 was attacked by some unknown
persons and accordingly a blind FIR was
lodged by the revisionist no. 1 on
30.03.2006 which was registered as Case
Crime No. 147/2006 under Section 307 IPC
at Police Station- Nauchandi, DistrictMeerut.
According
to
the
evidence
collected in this matter, the revisionist no. 2
was
admitted
in
hospital
and
not
unconscious and he did not know about the
assailants. The statement of the revisionist
no. 1 was recorded on the same day
supporting his blind FIR. On 10.04.2006,
i.e. on the twelfth day of the incident, the
revisionist no. 2 named the opposite parties
as assailants. On 14.04.2006, the revisionist
no. 1 also made a supplementary statement
to support the false charge and thus
conspired with revisionist no. 2.

37. The Investigation Officer in
Case Crime No. 147/2006 under Section
307 IPC submitted final report finding the
name of opposite parties false and being
named falsely with the intent to spoil the
reputation of the Institution and for illegal
gains. The cognizance was taken on the
protest petition filed by the revisionists.
The applicants approached this Court in
Criminal
Misc.
Application
Nos.
4983/2009 and 6068/2009 and they were
duly protected by the interim order dated
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26.03.2009. In this situation, the Public
Prosecutor
made
an
application
for
withdrawal from this false prosecution,
which was allowed by the competent court
and the subject matter of challenge before
this Court.

38. The State also instituted
separate
proceedings
against
the
revisionists which ultimately culminated
into a charge sheet dated 06.01.2009 under
Sections 195, 211, 120B and 389 of IPC on
which cognizance was taken by the
competent court, before the cognizance
taken in Case Crime no. 147/2006, for false
implication of Sanjay Bansal and Ajay
Bansal (which is subject matter of Criminal
Misc. Application no. 8882 of 2009
connected to the instant revision).

39. The Court took cognizance in
Case Crime No. 147/2006 under Section
307 IPC, only on the basis that normally
the injured only could tell about the real
assailants (kindly see at page 118, ninth
line from the top of the instant criminal
revision), which is contrary to evidence
collected in separate proceedings arising
out of Case Crime No. 467/2008 under
Sections 195, 211, 389, 120-B IPC, thereby
ignoring the order/direction of the Court
dated 05.02.2009 in Crl. Misc. Application
No.
28576-79/2009
in
Crl.
Misc.
Application No. 648/2009. In this matter
the State had definite evidence before them
that opposite parties in this case were
falsely implicated and accordingly they
filed a charge sheet in separate proceedings
by virtue of Case Crime No. 467/2008
under Sections 195, 211, 120B and 389 of
IPC on which cognizance was taken by the
competent court against the revisionists.

40. The investigating agency in the
present case had definite evidence before
them that the injured revisionist no. 2 had
brought false charge against opposite
parties inter alia, a VCD (Talks between the
revisionist no.