# Kuldeep Narayan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5469 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuldeep-narayan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45362
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the reinvestigation
order on the ground that Magistrate has
no power for directing reinvestigation are
fresh investigation. - Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
further investigation - Police possesses power of
further investigation.

The use of word "पुनः वििेचना" will not be
guiding factor to determine where to order reinvestigation or further investigation. (Para-19)

It is the substance which is to be looked into or
reading the application and the order of the
Magistrate - it is clear that permission with
direction was for further investigation and not a
new investigation. Hence there is no any
irregularity impugned order.

CrMA-1 dismissed and CrMA-2 allowed.
(E-2)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
functions and whether matter would come
within the expression 'while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of their
official duty', would get crystallized only
after evidence is led and issue of sanction
can be agitated at a later stage as well.
Court said that without there being
evidence and issue having been considered
by Trial Court, at the stage of summoning
such an issue cannot be examined by
superior Court on a Criminal Revision or
on an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. This judgment, in my view, rather
goes against applicant instead of helping
him.

22. In this case, applicant has long back
ceased to be an official of University.
Learned A.G.A. has informed that he has
already been terminated. Once accusedapplicant is no more a 'public servant', issue
of Section 197 will become redundant and
would not vitiate proceedings since in such
matters sanction is not required.

23. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that though order of cognizance could not be
appended to the application but he has got a
copy of said order dated 21.09.2005 and it
shows that it is a totally non speaking,
unreasoned order and therefore bad in law.
Copy of order placed before court passed by
C.J.M. on 21.09.2005 reads as under ;

^^vkt vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa izkIr
gqvkA ckn voyksdu vkns'k gqvk fd ntZ jftLVMZ
gks vfHk;qDr ds fy, izlaKku fy;k x;k udys rS;kj
djk;h tkosA fnukad 30-11-05 dks okLrs gkftjh ,oa
nsus udys is'k gksaA** (Emphasis added)

24. Having gone through the said order
it cannot be said that Magistrate had not
applied its mind to the documents placed
before registering the case and taken
cognizance
by
summoning
accusedapplicant. A similar issue was considered in
U. P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan
Meaking Limited and others, 2000 (3)
SCC 745, and after referring to an earlier
decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of
West Bengal 2001 SCC 722, Court said :

"Legislature has stressed the need
to record reasons in certain situations such
as dismissal of complaint without issuing
process. There is no such requirement
imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed
order while issuing summons. Process
issued to accused cannot be quashed merely
on the ground that Magistrate had not
passed a speaking order." (Emphasis added)

25. Same proposition was reiterated in
Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC
465. Thus even this argument fails.

26. No other point has been argued.

27. I, therefore, find no merit in the
application.

28. Dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
----------
(2020)10ILR A506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5469 of 2003
&
Application U/S 482 No. 2444 of 2005

Kuldeep Narayan & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
10 All. Kuldeep Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri D.B. Mishra, Sri H.C. Mishra, Sri
V.P. Srivastava

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the reinvestigation
order on the ground that Magistrate has
no power for directing reinvestigation are
fresh investigation. - Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
further investigation - Police possesses power of
further investigation.

The use of word "पुनः वििेचना" will not be
guiding factor to determine where to order reinvestigation or further investigation. (Para-19)

It is the substance which is to be looked into or
reading the application and the order of the
Magistrate - it is clear that permission with
direction was for further investigation and not a
new investigation. Hence there is no any
irregularity impugned order.

CrMA-1 dismissed and CrMA-2 allowed.
(E-2)

List of Cases cited:-

1.
Ram
Lal
Narang
Vs
State
(Delhi
Administration) ,(1979) 2 SCC 322.

2. Randhir Singh Rana Vs State (Delhi
Administration), (1997) 1 SCC 361.

3. Dinesh Dalmia Vs C.B.I. ,(2007) 8 SCC 770.

4. Rama Chaudhary Vs St. of Bihar, (2009)6 SCC 346.

5. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & ors.,
(2013) 5 SCC 762.

6. Dharam Pal Vs St. of Har., (2014) 2 SCC (Cri)
159.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.C. Mishra, learned
counsel for applicants, learned AGA for
State-respondent and Sri I. K. Chaturvedi,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G. S.
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent2.

2. Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482
No.5469 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
"CrMA-1") has been filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") by two
applicants namely, Kuldeep Narayan and
Harendra Vikram with a prayer that order
dated
26.06.2003
passed
by
First
Additional
Chief
Judicial
magistrate,
Meerut in Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under
Sections 392 and 411 IPC, Police StationKharkhauda,
District-Meerut
for
reinvestigation be quashed, on the ground
that Magistrate has no power for directing
reinvestigation or fresh investigation.

3. Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482
No.2444 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
"CrMA-2") has been filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") by
three applicants namely, Lokesh Kumar
Singhal, Sunil Kumar Maheshwari and
Rakesh alias Rajesh alias Bhurey with a
prayer
that
Case
No.3187
of
2004
registered before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Faizabad be clubbed with Case No.158/11
of 2003 pending before Court of 1st
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Meerut and should be tried together.

4. Facts giving rise to CrMA-1 in
brief are that a First Information Report
(hereinafter referred to as "FIR") being
Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under Section
392
IPC,
Police
Station-Kharkhauda,
District-Meerut
was
registered
on
05.04.2000 by Informant Lokesh Kumar
Singhal and it was against unknown
accused persons. Allegations in FIR dated
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
05.04.2000 stated that Informant Lokesh
Kumar is engaged in the business of
manufacturing of wires in his factory, "U.P.
Insulator Cable Company". In the night of
04/05.04.2000 at 1.30 AM, some persons
entered his factory through a ladder
crossing rear wall, tied the gunman
Santram and other working labours and
confined them in a room. Thereafter they
took away 442 rolls of cable wires and
three bundles copper in a vehicle. The
information was given to Informant by his
employee Anil Kumar in the morning of
05.04.2000 and thereafter he lodged report.

5.

Police
during
investigation
recorded statements of Santram (gunman),
Kalp Nath Rai (Chowkidar) and Anil
(another employee of Informant's firm).
Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred
to as 'I.O.'), however, submitted final report
on 31.12.2000 which was registered as
Misc.
Case
No.110
of
2001
vide
Magistrate's order dated 02.06.2001. Notice
was
issued
to
Complainant/Informant
giving opportunity to file objection but no
objection by opposite party was filed.
Ultimately, by order dated 08.11.2002,
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.6, Meerut, accepted final report. After a
long time, on oral request of Complainant,
Sub Inspector Sri Manik Chand Nigam
without
obtaining
permission
from
concerned Magistrate or higher authority
proceeded
to
Faizabad
and
raided
applicants' shop and godown and seized
some material alleging the same to be
stolen items and also arrested applicants.
Applicants,
thereafter
were
produced
before
1st
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut on 20.01.2003 and
remand was sought. Magistrate taking note
of the fact that final report was already
accepted and no permission of Magistrate
was obtained, rejected application seeking
remand of accused-applicants Kuldeep
Narayan and Harendra Vikram by order
dated 20.01.2003. Against order dated
20.01.2003, Criminal Revision No.38 of
2002 was filed wherein I.O. Sri Mahesh
Singh Chauhan submitted report that it
could not be found proved that goods were
either stolen or belongs to Complainant and
no prima facie case was found against
applicants. Revisional Court by order dated
05.05.2003 allowed revision observing that
police is free to proceed for further
investigation as per law. Operative part of
revisional order reads as under :

"Revision
is
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 20.1.2003 passed by
ACJ VI Meerut is set aside. However, in
view of the application, moved by the
Investigating
officer
16
Kha
dated
28.4.2003 the Investigating officer is free to
proceed with the investigation, as per
rules/law."

6. Applicants then made complaint of
Sri Manik Chand Nigam, S.I. Before higher
authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of
Police, Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as
'SSP').
Thereupon
by
order
dated
15.02.2003
further
investigation
was
handed over to another officer Sri Mahesh
Singh Chauhan. After making further
investigation Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan
submitted report on 08.05.2003 finding no
case against applicants. Applicants then
submitted an application before Magistrate
for release of goods seized from their shop
and godown. Therein I.O. Sri M. S.
Chauhan submitted report dated 14.05.2003
stating that he has no objection for release.
When matter was pending, Inspector
General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut
(hereinafter referred to as 'I.G.') passed
order
dated
05.06.2003
transferring
investigation of Case Crime No.90 of 2000
10 All. Kuldeep Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
509
to
District-Ghaziabad.
I.G.
failed
to
consider that no investigation was pending,
since, final report was submitted by I.O. on
08.05.2003 before Magistrate. Pursuant to
order of Inspector General of Police, SSP,
Ghaziabad entrusted investigation to Sub
Inspector, Sri B. S. Verma, SIS. Sri B. S.
Verma, S.I. moved an application dated
26.06.2003
before
Additional
Chief
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Meerut requesting
for permission for investigation whereupon
order dated 26.06.2003 has been passed by
Magistrate permitting re-investigation. This
order is challenged on the ground that there
is no provision for re-investigation and,
therefore, order dated 26.06.2003 is wholly
without jurisdiction.

7. In the meantime, applicants also
submitted an application before SSP,
Meerut on 10.06.2003 requesting to register
FIR against Lokesh Kumar Singhal, Sunil
Kumar Maheshwari, Rajesh, Manik Chand
Nigam (S.I.) and Head Constable Girwar
Singh, Rajkumar. Order was passed by SSP
directing Station House Officer, Civil
Lines, Meerut to register case whereupon
Case Crime No.1371 of 2003 under
Sections-166, 167, 182, 342, 406, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120 B IPC was registered against
Lokesh Kumar Singhal, Sunil Kumar
Maheshwari, Rajesh, Manik Chand Nigam
(S.I.) and Girwar Singh (Head Constable),
Rajkumar (Constable).

8. In CrMA-2 facts are broadly
similar but to put things straight the manner
in which applicants have stated, I may state
the same hereinbelow.

9. Alleging theft of 400 rolls of
copper wires and three bundle of copper,
FIR being Case Crime No.90 of 2000 was
registered under Section 392 IPC against
unknown
persons
at
Police
StationKharkhauda , District-Meerit by applicant
Lokesh Kumar Singhal as Informant.
Police after investigation submitted final
report which was accepted by Magistrate
vide order dated 08.11.2000. Thereafter, on
some
information
received
by
Sub
Inspector, Sri Manik Chand Nigam, he
went to Faizabad and raided shop of
Kuldeep Narayan (O.P.no.2) and Harendra
wherefrom 172 rolls insulated copper wire
were recovered, allegedly stolen/looted in
the incident dated 04./05.04.2000. Looted
property was identified by applicant-1
Lokesh Kumar and recovery memo was
prepared. Two accused Kuldeep Narayan
and Harendra were arrested and produced
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad
for transit remand. They were brought to
Meerut
and
produced
before
VIth
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
seeking remand which was declined, since,
final report was already accepted and
police
had
not
obtained
any
prior
permission. Aggrieved by order dated
20.01.2003 passed by Magistrate declining
to accord remand, State Government filed
Criminal Revision No.38 of 2003 which
was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2003
and Revisonal Court at Meerut observed
that further investigation may be made.
Investigation was handed over to Sub
Inspector, Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan.
Applicants, however, moved an application
before
District
Inspector
General(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'DIG')/IG,
Meerut
for
entrusting
investigation to another officer since Sri
Mahesh Singh Chauhan was in connivance
with O.P.2 and his accomplices. By order
dated 06.06.2003, DIG, Meerut directed
that investigation shall be conducted by SIS
at Ghaziabad and Sri B. S. Verma, Sub
Inspector of SIS was appointed as I.O.
After obtaining permission from Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Meerut, he
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completed investigation and submitted
charge sheet against Kuldeep Narayan and
Harendra Vikram and one Shyam Behari
on 16.07.2003.

10 However, Magistrate at Meerut
was informed that order dated 26.06.2003
passed in Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under
Section 392 and 411 IPC was stayed on
14.07.2003 by this Court in CrMA-1.
Further both parties moved application
before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
1st Meerut for release of goods. Thereafter
applicants of CrMA-1 got a report lodged
against applicants of CrMA-2 i.e. Case
Crime No. 1371 of 2003 under Sections166, 167, 182, 342, 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120 B IPC on 10.06.2003. This FIR
was challenged by applicant-1 of CrMA-2
in Writ Petition No.4634 of 2003. Vide
order dated 08.09.2003, while issuing
notice to Kuldeep Narayan and Mahesh
Singh Chauhan, who were impleaded as
respondent-5 and 6 in aforesaid writ
petition, time was granted to file counter
affidavit to State and this Court stayed
arrest of applicant-1 in Case Crime
No.1371 of 2003 till submission of charge
sheet or credible evidence is collected
during investigation. Investigation was
conducted in Case Crime No.1371 of 2003
and ultimately charge sheet has been filed.
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance,
summoned applicants and case has been
registered as Case No.3187 of 2004 in the
Court
of
Chief
Judical
Magistrate,
Faizabad. Submission of applicants in
CrMA-2 is that one case is at Faizabad and
another at Meerut, though both cases have
arisen from same incident and, therefore,
both cases should be tried together.

11. I proceed to consider first CrMA1, wherein order dated 26.06.2003 passed
by Magistrate has been challenged wherein
direction has been given for "पुिः मववेर्िा"
which according to applicants is reinvestigation, and is not permissible, while
according to opposite parties, it is further
investigation and permissible. Hence, this
Court is required to consider whether
aforesaid order is valid or not.

12. It is no doubt true that for Hindi
words "पुिः मववेर्िा" used in impugned
order dated 26.06.2003, dictionary meaning
is re-investigation. Under Section 173 (8)
CrPC, Police possesses power to proceed for
further investigation, but there is no provision
empowering police for re-investigation.
Word "re-investigation" has to be understood
in the context of fresh investigation, new
investigation and not in continuation with
investigation already made. Before coming to
the specific case in hand, it will be
appropriate to have a bird eye view of law on
the subject.

13. In Ram Lal Narang vs. State
(Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322,
Court considered the scope and purport of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. and said that on the
Magistrate taking cognizance on police
report, right of Police to further investigate is
not exhausted and it could exercise such right
even if, as often as necessary, when fresh
information comes to light. Further, it also
observed that it is desirable that Police
ordinarily should inform Court and seek its
formal
permission
to
make
further
investigation, if fresh facts come to light so as
to maintain independence of judiciary, in the
interests of purity of administration of
criminal justice and in interests of comity of
various agencies and institutions entrusted
with different stages of such administration.

14. In Randhir Singh Rana vs. State
(Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361
10 All. Kuldeep Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
511
Court observed that power of further
investigation is available to Police after
submission of charge-sheet by virtue of
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

15. In Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007)
8 SCC 770, again Court held that
Investigating Officer has power to make a
prayer for conducting further investigation
in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and this
power is not taken away only because a
charge-sheet has been filed under Section
173(2) and cognizance has been taken by
Magistrate.

16. In Rama Chaudhary vs. State of
Bihar, 2009(6) SCC 346 Court examined
power of Magistrate under sub Section (2)
and (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and said:

"From a plain reading of subsection (2) and sub-section (8) of Section
173, it is evident that even after submission
of police report under sub-section (2) on
completion of investigation, the police has
a right to "further" investigation under subsection (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh
investigation" or "reinvestigation". The
meaning of "Further" is additional; more;
or supplemental. "Further" investigation,
therefore, is the continuation of the earlier
investigation and not a fresh investigation
or reinvestigation to be started ab initio
wiping
out
the
earlier
investigation
altogether."

17. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @
Deepak and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 Court
recognizaed power of further investigation
of Police suo motu with reference to
Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and held that
Investigating Agency was competent to file
a report supplementary to its primary report
and that the former was to be treated by
Court in continuation of the latter.

18. The decision in Vinay Tyagi vs.
Irshad Ali (supra) has been reiterated and
followed in Dharam Pal vs. State of
Haryana,
2014(2)
SCC
(Cri)
159
observing
that
superior
Courts
have
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
under Article 226 of Constitution of India
to direct further investigation, afresh or
denovo, and even re-investigation. Fresh,
de novo or reinvestigation are synonym
expressions and result whereof in law,
would be same. Superior Courts are even
vested
with
power
of
investigation
transferred from one agency to another,
provided ends of justice so demands. This
power has to be exercised by Superior
Courts very sparingly and with great
circumspection.
Court
reiterated
the
following observation with regard to the
power of Magistrate:

"Where the Magistrate can only
direct further investigation, the courts of
higher jurisdiction can direct further,
reinvestigation or even investigation de
novo depending on the facts of a given
case. It would be specific order of the
Court that would determine the nature of
investigation."

19. The exposition of law laid down
in above authorities is well established but
it has to be examined in the facts of
particular case whether there is any order of
fresh or re-investigation or it is an order of
further investigation and for this purpose
mere use of words "पुिः मववेर्िा", as such
will not be a guiding factor, since, it is
substance which is to be looked into.

20.

Now
considering
above
expositions of law, I have to examine order
dated 26.06.2003 in the context, whether
Magistrate
intended
to
direct
fresh
investigation or new investigation as re-
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation or it is further investigation
i.e. in continuation to investigation already
made.

21. To examine this aspect, I may
reproduce order dated 26.06.2003 which
reads as under :

"अ सं 90/2000 धारा 392 भा
द सं के मववेर्क पी एस विाष द्वारा
प्राथषिा पत्र िें पुिः तफ्तीश से धारा
173 सीआरपीसी के प्रकरण के सन्दभष
िें सी डी पुिः मववेर्िा मकये जािे के
सन्दभष िें मदया गया है। कहा गया है
मक उपरोक्त सन्दभष िें पुिः तफ्तीश
च ूँसक तार का नम ना बरामद समलान
में सवसध सवज्ञान प्रयोगिाला में
तस्दीक़ नहीं कराया गया है तिा
महत्वप णण साक्षी हैं तिा बयान
अंसकत नहीं सकये गए हैं "आदेि के
तहत पुनः सववेचना" कागजात वापस
सकये जावे।

अतः
पुिः
सववेचना
सक
अनुमसत व कागजात सवसधक वापस
सकये जाते हैं।"

In
an
application
for
reinvestigation in respect of case under
Section 173 CrPC moved by P.S. Verma,
Investigating
Officer
of
the
Crime
No.90/2000 under Section 392 IPC, it is
stated that under the order: "Since
recovered sample of wire has not been
verified in the Forensic Laboratory and
statements of important witnesses have not
been recorded" in the aforesaid reference,
re-investigation documents be returned.

Hence, with the permission for
re-investigation,
legal documents are
returned."
(emphasis added)(English translation by
Court)

22.

Magistrate
has
allowed
application submitted by police with
permission
to
make
"पुिः मववेर्िा".
Magistrate had not observed that earlier
investigation shall be a nullity and police
will make a new investigation. Entire order
when read as such makes intention clear
that Magistrate has directed police to make
further investigation i.e. investigation in
continuance to investigation already made
and not altogether a new investigation
ignoring earlier investigation. The mere
terminology used by Magistrate i.e. "पुिः
मववेर्िा", in my view, will not control the
order when intention of order from its very
perusal is quite clear. It is different thing
that what is being conveyed by the party
challenging said order on the ground that it
is a permission for new investigation or
fresh
investigation
and
not
further
investigation but in fact, in Hindi, I do not
find a single word for 'further investigation'
and Hindi to English dictionary shows its
meaning to be "आगे मक जांर् पडताल". It
appears that the terminology used in this
aspect by Magistrate is a little bit defective
but intention of Magistrate as well as Police
authorities is very clear when we read
application and order that it is permission
with direction for further investigation and
not a new investigation. Hence, I do not
find any reason to hold impugned order
dated
26.06.2003,
illegal
and
reject
submissions
advanced
otherwise
by
applicants in CrMA-1.

23. Now coming to CrMA-2,
apparently cases pending in two Courts are
different to the extent that offences under
different
provisions
against
different
persons are involved, but it cannot be
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
513
doubted that on certain aspects the facts in
both cases are overlapping and some
aspects are common. If one aspect is true in
one matter then second cannot continue and
second case will stand belied. But the
question is whether a case from one Court
to another can be transferred on an
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or such a request should be made by filing
application under Section 407 CrPC. There
was one option, whereby this Court would
have permitted applicants of CrMA-2 to
move an application under Section 407
CrPC requesting for transfer of case to
another district where one case is already
pending and thereafter request could have
been made to concerned District Judge to
direct that both cases should be heard by
same Court. This option would take further
time and only result in multiplying
litigation. These matters are pending for
almost 15-17 years. Power under Section
482 CrPC is wide enough and mere
mention or non mention of a provision
cannot deprive a Court to exercise powers
which is otherwise vested in it, even if it is
not mentioned by applicants. In given facts
and circumstances, Court can exercise a
power if it is vested with it.

24. In these facts and circumstances,
exercising powers under Section 482
CrPC read with Section 407 CrPC, I allow
CrMA-2 i.e. Application under Section
482 CrPC No.2444 of 2005 and transfer
Case No.3187 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs.
Lokesh
Kumar
Singhal
and
others)
pending in Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faizabad to Court of 1st
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Meerut with a further direction that Case
No.158/11 of 2003 pending in the Court of
1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut shall be heard together with
transferred case.

25. In the result, CrMA-1 is hereby
dismissed and CrMA-2 is allowed in the
manner as aforesaid.
----------
(2020)10ILR A513
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5396 of 2006

Umesh Chandra Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Raj Kumar Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the case under
section 420, 218, 471 IPC- Condition for
exercise of power to prevent an abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice
- only in case basic ingredients of offences
alleged are at together absent - Power shall not
be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution.

State of framing of charge :- Defence of
accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Various documents placed before the court in
defence by the accused cannot be examined the
same.

Application lacks merit and dismissed. (E2)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005)
1 SCC 568.

2. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs St.of Bihar, (2009) 8
SCC.