# Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 707
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-01
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 7151 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madan-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49176
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 190()(b), 200, 202
& 204 - Final report was submitted and no
protest petition against it was filed -
Power of Magistrate to treat it as the
criminal complaint case, how far lie -
Held, in case of police report that no case
is
made
out
against
accused,
the
Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
drawn by police and take cognizance
under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issue
process or in the alternative he can take
cognizance of original complaint and
examine
the
complainant
and
his
witnesses
and
thereafter
can
issue
process to accused, if he is of opinion that
there are sufficient ground to proceed
against accused - India Carat Pvt. Ltd.'s
case relied upon. (Para 14)
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Sections 197 - Protection of prior sanction
- Claim by the police personnel while
performing official work - Taking the
deceased to the hospital by the police
personnel after arrest, will it be defined as
the official duty - Held, the act of
applicant was connected with official duty
- Further held, there was a bar under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. to proceed against
applicant,
a
police
personnel,
when
alleged offence was committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty, no Court shall
take cognizance of such offence except
with
previous
sanction
-
Criminal
proceedings initiated against applicant
was held erroneous and illegal. (Para 19,
20 and 21)
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1 All. Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
707

25. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned summoning
order dated 08.02.2019 passed in Case No.
21 of 2019: State of U.P. Versus Krishna
Kumar and others under Section 363, 366
I.P.C. and Sections 16 and 17 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, pending before the ASJ/POCSO-II
Raibareli is hereby quashed.

26. The matter is remitted back to
ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli directing him to
decide
afresh
the
issue
for
taking
cognizance and summoning the applicants
and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law keeping in view the observations
made by this Court as well as the direction
contained in the judgments referred to
above within a period of two months from
the date of production of a copy of this
order.

27. The party shall file certified copy
or computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad or certified copy
issued from the Registry of the High Court,
Allahabad.

28.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 707
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.
Application u/s 482 No. 7151 of 2022

Madan Pal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, Sri V.P. Srivastava(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 190()(b), 200, 202
& 204 - Final report was submitted and no
protest petition against it was filed -
Power of Magistrate to treat it as the
criminal complaint case, how far lie -
Held, in case of police report that no case
is
made
out
against
accused,
the
Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
drawn by police and take cognizance
under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issue
process or in the alternative he can take
cognizance of original complaint and
examine
the
complainant
and
his
witnesses
and
thereafter
can
issue
process to accused, if he is of opinion that
there are sufficient ground to proceed
against accused - India Carat Pvt. Ltd.'s
case relied upon. (Para 14)
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Sections 197 - Protection of prior sanction
- Claim by the police personnel while
performing official work - Taking the
deceased to the hospital by the police
personnel after arrest, will it be defined as
the official duty - Held, the act of
applicant was connected with official duty
- Further held, there was a bar under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. to proceed against
applicant,
a
police
personnel,
when
alleged offence was committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty, no Court shall
take cognizance of such offence except
with
previous
sanction
-
Criminal
proceedings initiated against applicant
was held erroneous and illegal. (Para 19,
20 and 21)
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. H.S. Bains Vs The St. (Union Territory of
Chandigarh); AIR 1980 SC 1883
2. Abhinandan Jha & ors. Vs Dinesh Mishra; AIR
1968 SC 117
3. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn.; 1989(2)
SCC 132
4. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.;
AIR 1992 SC 604
5. D. Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain; (2020)
7 SCC 695
6. Rajiv Thapar & ors. Vs Madan Lal Kapoor;
(2013) 3 SCC 330
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In order to consider rival
submissions, it is necessary to place brief
facts of the case on record.

2. On 02.12.1999 a police party
intercepted three persons in a routine
patrolling duty and after exchange of firing
two persons were apprehended but one
person managed to run away. Said two
injured-accused were arrested and three
FIRs were lodged being Case Crime No.
228 of 1999, under Section 307 IPC and
Case Crime No. 229 of 1999 as well as
Case Crime No. 230 of 1999, under Section
25 Arms Act, Police Station Roza, District
Shahjahanpur and accused Yaqub alias
Gulam Khwaja and Arish were remanded
to police custody. They were admitted in
hospital and were under treatment and on
advice of Doctors one of the accused,
Yaqub when on the way to Spinal Surgery
Unit
of
KGMC,
Lucknow died
on
04.12.1999. Post mortem was conducted
wherein five injuries were found on his
body.

3. In these circumstances, Saroon
wife
of
deceased,
Yaqub
filed
an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur against police party, who
have arrested deceased after exchange of
firing with allegation that it was a death
due to custodial torture. Said application
was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2001,
however a revision thereof was allowed
vide order dated 09.02.2001 and thereafter
a FIR was lodged on 23.02.2001 against
present
applicant
and
other
police
personnel under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302 IPC, Police Station Roza, District
Shahjahanpur. After investigation a final
report was submitted on 24.10.2001. A
notice was also issued by Human Right
Commission on basis of an application
filed by wife of deceased-accused in which
a report was submitted that deceased was
rightly arrested and he died due to injuries
suffered during his arrest despite proper
treatment.

4. The above referred final report
dated 24.10.2001 was submitted before
Trial Court, however, without calling a
protest petition vide order dated 03.01.2002
the Court registered a criminal complaint
case and issued notice to complainant, i.e.,
Saroon, wife of deceased and thereafter her
statement was recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. as well as statements of two
witnesses were also recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. and consequently by impugned
order dated 28.09.2010 passed under
Section 204 Cr.P.C., summons were issued
against applicant and other persons to face
trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC.

5.

Under
the
above
factual
background and on the basis of rival
submissions issues before this Court for
consideration are, whether without any
1 All. Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
709
protest
petition
a
Magistrate
while
disapproving a final report can treat it to be
a criminal complaint case and further on
basis of statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. could pass an order
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to summon
accused persons and if answer to above
issue is in affirmative, whether in facts and
circumstances
of
present
case
order
impugned passed under Section 204
Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable or not as well
as whether applicant being a police
personnel is entitled for protection from
initiation of a criminal proceeding in
question under Section 197 Cr.P.C. being
without previous sanction?

6. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar
Rai,
learned
counsel
for
applicant,
vehemently urged that deceased-accused
alongwith other accused were apprehended
on 02.12.1999 after exchange of firing in
injured condition and immediately they
were produced before Magistrate who
granted remand of accused by order dated
02.12.1999 that he had suffered serious
injuries and was admitted in hospital and
with further direction that accused be sent
to custody after discharge from hospital. He
was given treatment in hospital for spinal
and head injuries and Senior counsel has
placed reliance on medical treatment report
and that after two days on 04.12.1999 he
was referred to other hospital (Spinal Care
Unit at KGMC, Lucknow) however he died
while going to hospital and brought dead at
KGMC, Lucknow. Therefore, without any
dispute or challenge to the order of remand
or otherwise any allegation of torture
during remand by police personnel are not
sustainable when accused was immediately,
after arrest, admitted in the hospital. Police
has fairly investigated the case and
submitted a final report. Deceased died due
to injuries suffered during his arrest and
any allegations of custodial torture were
false and baseless. On legal issue learned
Senior Advocate placed reliance on H.S.
Bains vs. The State (Union Territory of
Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 in order
to show, what should be correct procedure
with regard to arrest, investigation, police
report and procedure adopted by Magistrate
after filing of a final report.

7. Learned Senior Advocate further
placed reliance on paragraphs 15 and 21 of
Abhinandan Jha and others vs. Dinesh
Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117, which are
reproduced as under:

"15. Then the question is, what is the
position, when the Magistrate is dealing
with a report submitted by the police, under
Section 173, that no case is made out for
sending up an accused for trial, which
report, as we have already indicated, is
called, in the area in question, as a 'final
report'? Even in those cases, if the
Magistrate agrees with the said report, he
may accept the final report and close the
proceedings. But there may be instances
when the Magistrate may take the view, on
a consideration of the final report, that the
opinion formed by the police is not based
on a full and complete investigation, in
which case in our opinion the Magistrate
will have ample jurisdiction to give
directions to the police, under Section
156(3), to make a further investigation.
That is, if the Magistrate feels, after
considering the final report, that the
investigation
is
unsatisfactory,
or
incomplete, or that there is scope for
further investigation, it will be open to the
Magistrate to decline to accept the final
report and direct the police to make further
investigation, under Section 156(3). The
police, after such further investigation, may
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submit a charge-sheet, or,, again submit a
final report, depending upon the further
investigation made by them. If, ultimately,
the Magistrate forms the opinion that the
facts, set out in the final report, constitute
an offence, he, can take cognizance of the
offence
under
Section
190(1)(c),
notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the
police, expressed in the final report."

"21. In these two appeals, one other
fact will have to be taken note of. It is not
very clear as to whether the Magistrate, in
each of these cases, has chosen to treat the
protest petitions, filed by the respective
respondents, as complaints, because, we do
not find that the Magistrate has adopted the
suitable procedure indicated in the Code,
when he takes cognizance of an offence, on
a complaint made to him. Therefore, while
holding that the orders of the Magistrate,
in each of these cases, directing the police
to
file
charge-sheets,
is
Without
jurisdiction, we make it clear that it is open
to the Magistrate to treat the respective
protest petitions, as complaints, and take
further proceedings, according to law, and
in the light of the views expressed by us, in
this judgment."

8. Reliance was also placed on para
16 of India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Karnataka, 1989(2) SCC 132, that:

"16. The position is, therefore, now
well settled that upon receipt of a police
report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is
entitled to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if
the police report is to the effect that no case
is made out against the accused. The
Magistrate can take into account the
statements of the witnesses examined by the
police during the investigation and take
cognizance of the offence complained of
and order the issue of process to the
accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay
down
that
a
Magistrate
can
take
cognizance of an offence only if the
investigating officer gives an opinion that
the investigation has made out a case
against the accused. The Magistrate can
ignore the conclusion arrived at by the
investigating officer ;and independently
apply his mind to the facts emerging from
the investigation and take cognizance of the
case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his
powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct
the issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation
to follow the procedure laid down in
Section 200 and 202 of the Code for taking
cognizance of a case under Section
190(1)(b) though it is open to him to act
under Section 200 or Section 202 also. The
High Court was, there- fore, wrong in
taking the view that the Second Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not
entitled to direct the registration of a case
against the second respondent and order
the issue of summons to him."

9. Learned Senior Advocate placed
reliance on State of Haryana and others
vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992
SC 604, that "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",
such
criminal
proceedings can be quashed by High Court
exercising inherent jurisdiction.

10. Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior
Advocate has also submitted that applicant
is a police personnel, therefore, his actions
are protected in the light of Section 197
Cr.P.C. as well as that Government Order
dated
30.06.1975,
said
protection
is
1 All. Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
711
extended to all police force and since there
was no prior sanction, criminal proceedings
are per se illegal.

11. Per contra, Sri Paritosh Malviya,
learned AGA-I appearing for State, has
rendered his assistance on legal issue that
there are very serious charges against
applicant and other police personnel of
custodial torture of an arrested person, who
later on died. The Magistrate cannot remain
as a mere spectator and since he has
considered it to be a complaint case, there
was no illegality to summon the applicant
and others on consideration of statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. The protection granted under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. is limited to any
offence alleged to have been committed
while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty only, however,
allegations are such that it cannot be said to
be an act in discharge of their official duty.

12. Heard learned counsel for parties,
perused the record and written submissions.

13. In order to consider the first issue,
whether a Magistrate while disapproving a
final report without any protest petition
could consider it to be a criminal complaint
case and could proceed further, it would be
relevant to refer para 17 of the judgment
passed by Supreme Court in India Carat
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as under:

"17. The fact that in this case the
investigation had not originated from a
complaint preferred to the Magistrate but
had been made pursuant to a report given
to the police would not alter the situation in
any manner. Even if the appellant had
preferred a complaint before the learned
Magistrate and the Magistrate had ordered
investigation under Section 156(3), the
police would have had to submit a report
under Section 173(2). It has been held in
Tufa Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh, [1978]
1 SCR 615 that if the police, after making
an investigation, send a report that no
case was made out against the accused,
the
Magistrate
could
ignore
the
conclusion drawn by the police and take
cognizance of a case under Section
190(1)(b) and issue process or in the
alternative he can take cognizance of the
original complaint and examine the
complainant
and
his
witnesses
and
thereafter issue process to the accused, if
he is of opinion that the case should be
proceeded with."

 (Emphasis added)

14. It is not in dispute that in the
present case initially an application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected
but on an order passed in revision to lodge
FIR investigation was conducted but a final
report was submitted. Therefore, before the
Magistrate a complaint in form of an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was already on record. Though, normally in
these circumstances when a final report
was submitted a notice could be issued to
complainant who can file a protest petition,
which can be considered as a complaint,
however, as referred in above referred
paragraph of India Carat Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) even in absence of a protest
petition a complaint already filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could be considered
as a criminal case and Magistrate may
proceed further to ask the complainant to
record his/her statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. and if there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against
accused persons, he can issue summons
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. As referred in
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that in case
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of police report that no case is made out
against accused, the Magistrate can ignore
the conclusion drawn by police and take
cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
and issue process or in the alternative he
can take cognizance of original complaint
and examine the complainant and his
witnesses and thereafter can issue process
to accused, if he is of opinion that there are
sufficient
ground
to
proceed
against
accused and in present case the Magistrate
has adopted similar procedure and original
complaint filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was considered to be a complaint
and after disapproving the final report
proceeded
to
issue
process
after
considering statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there are
sufficient ground to proceed under Section
204 Cr.P.C.

15. The order sheet also indicates that
on 03.01.2002 Magistrate passed order that
final report received, a criminal case be
registered and issue notice to complainant.
Thereafter on request of complainant her
statement
was
recorded
and
further
statements of witnesses were also recorded
and on the basis of statements summons
were issued. Therefore, there was no
procedural irregularity or illegality adopted
by Magistrate concerned as such there was
no abuse of process of law.

16. As the first issued is answered in
affirmative, the Court now proceed to
consider the second issue, whether order
impugned is legally sustainable or not and
that applicant being a police personnel is
protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. or not?

17. In order to consider the rival
submissions on this issue, I have carefully
perused the statements of complainant as well
as witnesses. Complainant has alleged that
deceased, her husband, was illegally arrested
and it was a case of custodial torture. She
further states that when police personnels
were taking her husband to Lucknow, he told
about torture committed on him during
custody.
Witnesses
also
narrated
that
allegation of custodial torture on deceased
that it was communicated to them by victim.
Considering the above statements though a
prima facie case is made out against applicant
and other police personnels, however, the
facts and documents which are part of this
record that deceased alongwith co-accused
were arrested during a police raid in injured
condition after exchange of firing and that he
was medically examined that he suffered
serious injuries, there are evidence of medical
treatment also as well as as per record victim
was arrested on 02.11.1999 and was
immediately admitted in hospital and order
for remand was passed to be executed only
after his discharge from hospital but before
discharge considering his condition he was
referred to KGMC, Lucknow when he died
during journey. The cause of death, therefore,
cannot be held outrightly to be due to
custodial torture, if any.

18. In the order of remand,
Magistrate had referred condition of
victim
after
interaction
with
him.
Therefore, prima facie it cannot be held
that police personnels have done an act
beyond their official duty. The Magistrate
concerned ought to have considered
before
issuing
summon,
whether
protection can be granted under Section
197 Cr.P.C. that without prior sanction no
cognizance can be taken. However, the
Magistrate has not even make an attempt
to consider this aspect. In this regard it
would be relevant to reproduce few
paragraphs of a judgment of Supreme
Court in D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer
Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695:
1 All. Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
713

"65.
The
law
relating
to
the
requirement of sanction to entertain and/or
take cognizance of an offence, allegedly
committed by a police officer under Section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
read with Section 170 of the Karnataka
Police Act, is well settled by this Court,
inter alia by its decisions referred to above.

66. Sanction of the Government, to
prosecute a police officer, for any act
related to the discharge of an official duty,
is imperative toprotect the police officer
from
facing
harassive,
retaliatory,
revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The
requirement
of
sanction
from
the
government, to prosecute would give an
upright police officer the confidence to
discharge his official duties efficiently,
without fear of vindictive retaliation by
initiation of criminal action, from which
he would be protected under Section 197
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read
with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police
Act. At the same time, if the policeman has
committed a wrong, which constitutes a
criminal offence and renders him liable for
prosecution, he can be prosecuted with
sanction from the appropriate government.

67. Every offence committed by a
police officer does not attract Section 197
of the Code of Criminal Procedure read
with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police
Act. The protection given under Section
197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read
with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police
Act has its limitations. The protection is
available only when the alleged act done
by the public servant is reasonably
connected with the discharge of his
official duty and official duty is not merely
a cloak for the objectionable act. An
offence committed entirely outside the
scope of the duty of the police officer,
would certainly not require sanction. To
cite an example, a police man assaulting a
domestic help or indulging in domestic
violence would certainly not be entitled to
protection. However if an act is connected
to the discharge of official duty of
investigation of a recorded criminal case,
the act is certainly under colour of duty, no
matter how illegal the act may be.

68. If in doing an official duty a
policeman has acted in excess of duty, but
there is a reasonable connection between
the act and the performance of the official
duty, the fact that the act alleged is in
excess of duty will not be ground enough
to deprive the policeman of the protection
of government sanction for initiation of
criminal action against him.

69. The language and tenor of Section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act
makes it absolutely clear that sanction is
required not only for acts done in
discharge of official duty, it is also
required for an act purported to be done in
discharge of official duty and/or act done
under colour of or in excess of such duty or
authority.

70. To decide whether sanction is
necessary, the test is whether the act is
totally unconnected with official duty or
whether there is a reasonable connection
with the official duty. In the case of an act
of a policeman or any other public servant
unconnected with the official duty there
can be no question of sanction. However,
if the act alleged against a policeman is
reasonably connected with discharge of
his official duty, it does not matter if the
policeman has exceeded the scope of his
powers and/or acted beyond the four
corners of law.

71. If the act alleged in a complaint
purported to be filed against the policeman
is reasonably connected to discharge of
some official duty, cognizance thereof
cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appropriate government is obtained
under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and/or Section 170 of the
Karnataka Police Act." (Emphasis added)

19. As discussed in the penultimate
paragraph that there are documents which
shows that after arrest of victim he was
admitted in hospital in injured condition and
was put under treatment. The injuries were of
serious nature and Magistrate while granting
order of remand not only visited the hospital
but interacted with victim also. Further, after
arrested of victim on 02.12.1999 he was
remained
admitted
in
hospital
from
02.12.1999 to 04.12.1999 when he was
referred to Spinal Care Unit, KGMC,
Lucknow and on way to said hospital on
04.12.1999 he died. In these circumstances
the test, whether prior sanction is necessary is
a satisfaction that alleged act has reasonable
connection with official duty or not. It cannot
be held, ignoring the documents on record,
that act of applicant, a police personnel, was
unconnected with official duty.

20. In these circumstances, considering
the principle enumerated in Ch. Bhajan Lal
(supra), specifically that, "where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution or continuance of
proceedings.....", and as discussed above that
in facts and circumstances of present case
there was a bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to
proceed against applicant, a police personnel,
when alleged offence was committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in discharge
of official duty, no Court shall take
cognizance of such offence except with
previous sanction.

21. As discussed above, the act alleged
has atleast reasonable connection with
official duty of applicant, therefore, without
any prior sanction, as required under Section
197 Cr.P.C. criminal proceedings initiated
against applicant are erroneous and illegal.
Further, documents on record are not refuted
by complainant, therefore, in view of
judgment passed by Supreme Court in Rajiv
Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
(2013) 3 SCC 330, these documents can be
considered to secure the ends of justice.

22. The outcome of above discussion is
that the criminal proceedings initiated against
applicant in Complaint Case No. 3848 of
2010 (Smt. Sairoon vs. Jitendra Nath Singh
and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302 IPC as well as impugned orders dated
10.01.2022 passed by Sessions Judge,
Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 58 of
2021 (Madan Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and
another)
and
summoning
order
dated
28.09.2010
passed
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur,
are
hereby
quashed. However, complainant will have
liberty to sought sanction as required under
Section 197 Cr.P.C., if so advised, to initiated
any criminal proceeding against the applicant
in accordance with law.

23. The application is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 714
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 8292 of 2018

Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H.
Rizvi ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opp. Party