# Mahesh Chandra Shukla v. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-26
- **Case number:** C.M. Application No.11 of 2022
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chandra-shukla-v-achal-mishra-basic-shiksha-adhikari-lakhimpur-kheri-anr-50529
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 506 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 215 - Contempt of Court - Violation
of
Court
Order
-
Fraud
on
Court-
Quashing of Proceedings - Applicant sought
declaration of actions taken post 10.05.2013 as
void for violating High Court's order, alleging
fraud by Krishna Kumar Pandey, a Finance and
Accounts
Officer,
to
suppress
financial
irregularities and harass government officials -
FIR lodged with ulterior motive, omitting court's
order and Senior Registrar's letter from case
diary - Investigation conducted by officer below
prescribed rank, and report not submitted to
High Court as directed - Chargesheet under
Section
506
IPC
filed
with
manipulated
investigation - Court found Public Prosecutor's
independent assessment confirmed no offence
by Special Counsel - Held: High Court, as a
court of record under Article 215, has inherent
power to undo judgments obtained by fraud -
All actions post 10.05.2013 declared void -
Proceedings under Section 506 IPC quashed -
Notice issued to police officers for non-
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1269
compliance with court's order for potential
contempt proceedings.

Case Law Referred:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,983 of 77,683. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._

1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is concerned, mere finding that a woman
was abducted is not enough. It must further
be proved that the abduction is for the
purposes mentioned in Section 366 I.P.C.

In Shahjahan Vs. State, 2011
Cr.L.J. 573, the Apex Court has held :-

"In order to establish an offence
u/s 366 I.P.C., it must first be established
that the offence of kidnapping under
Section 361 I.P.C. or abduction under
Section 362 I.P.C. has been proved. It must
then be shown that such kidnapping or
abduction was with the contumacious intent
referred to under Section 366 I.P.C."

9. The essential condition for the
application of Section 366 I.P.C. is that
there is kidnapping or abduction of a
woman with the intention to compel her or
knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled to marry any person against her
will or will be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse.

10. In such view of the matter, we
find that the essential ingredients of Section
362 I.P.C. or even Section 366 I.P.C. are
not fulfilled against the petitioner no. 2,
Rajkumar.

11.

Under
these
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we are inclined
to allow the writ petition.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed. The First Information
Report dated 04.05.2023 registered as Case
Crime No. 214 of 2023, under Section 366
I.P.C., P.S.- Rath, District- Hamirpur, as
well as all consequential proceedings are
hereby quashed.

13. We, however, clarify that while
deciding the present petition, we have not
looked into the validity of marriage of the
petitioners.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1268
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) 695 of 2013

Mahesh Chandra Shukla ...Appellant
Versus
Achal
Mishra
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari
Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nirmal Singh, Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sri
Sharad Pathak, Sri Tej Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jyotinjai Verma, Sri Ram Kumar Singh, Sri
Sandip Kr Yadav

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 506 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 215 - Contempt of Court - Violation
of
Court
Order
-
Fraud
on
Court-
Quashing of Proceedings - Applicant sought
declaration of actions taken post 10.05.2013 as
void for violating High Court's order, alleging
fraud by Krishna Kumar Pandey, a Finance and
Accounts
Officer,
to
suppress
financial
irregularities and harass government officials -
FIR lodged with ulterior motive, omitting court's
order and Senior Registrar's letter from case
diary - Investigation conducted by officer below
prescribed rank, and report not submitted to
High Court as directed - Chargesheet under
Section
506
IPC
filed
with
manipulated
investigation - Court found Public Prosecutor's
independent assessment confirmed no offence
by Special Counsel - Held: High Court, as a
court of record under Article 215, has inherent
power to undo judgments obtained by fraud -
All actions post 10.05.2013 declared void -
Proceedings under Section 506 IPC quashed -
Notice issued to police officers for non-
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1269
compliance with court's order for potential
contempt proceedings.

Case Law Referred:

1. ABCD Vs U.O.I., (2020) 2 SCC 52

2. Vidya Devi Vs St. of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569

3. Smt. Sarita Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2022 (40)
LCD 871

4. Dr. J.S. Yadav Vs Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay,
2022 (40) LCD 1415

5. Barangore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh
Vs Baranagore Jute Factory PLC., (2017) 5 SCC
506

6. Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622

7. A.VS Papyya Sastry Vs Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4
SCC 221

8. Hamza Haji Vs St. of Kerala, (2006) 7 SCC
416

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

C.M. Application No.11 of 2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This is an application filed under
Article 215 of the Constitution for the
following directions:

"(1) to direct all the actions taken
after 10.5.2013 being in violation of the
order dated 10.05.2013 of the Hon'ble
High Court in above contempt petition and
based on fraud upon the Hon'ble High
Court
be
declared
void
and
entire
proceedings relating to Section 506 I.P.C.
in Case Crime no.207/2013, Case no.3922
of 2013, P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow
be dropped/ closed and be set aside.

(2) to direct initiation of legal
proceedings including criminal proceedings
against those responsible for initiation and
continuance of false case under Section 506
I.P.C.

(3) issue such other order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be
passed in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
one person Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey,
who was holding the post of Accounts
Officer at District Ambedkar Nagar at
relevant point of time in the year 2013 and
who was facing grave charges of financial
embezzlement and against him, serious
criminal
cases
are
registered,
has
apparently succeeded in using Hon'ble
High Court order passed on 10.05.2013 as a
tool not only to protect him from effective
enquiry against him, but also to affect the
pairvi of the cases and to wreck vengeance
against the then Basic Education Officer,
the deponent who was making pairvi of
cases and the then APP I/ Special Counsel/
respected and renowned member of the
Awadh Bar at Hon'ble High Court,
Lucknow who was appearing for the
government servant in the above contempt
petition at the relevant time on 10.05.2013
and affidavit was also filed by the
government through him.

Since the order dated 10.5.2013
passed by this court in this contempt
petition has been used as a tool against the
deponent and two other innocent persons,
the deponent is having no other alternative
remedy except to file this application
before this Court so that the actions taken
in violation of the order dated 10.05.2013
may be declared void. It is well settled that
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no person can be allowed to suffer because
of the action of Hon'ble court and the
proceedings/ order, the basis of which is
fraud, is to be set at naught/ nullified.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that order dated 10.5.2023 in the
above contempt petition was passed on
asking of Krishna Kumar Pandey and the
same was affirmed on 18.02.2020. The
order dated 10.05.2023 was against the
then
Senior
Registrar
(Sri
Alok
Mukherjee). The then Senior Registrar (Sri
Alok
Mukherjee)
wrote
letter
dated
10.05.2013 to the S.S.P., Lucknow. The
S.S.P.,
Lucknow
wrote
letter
dated
10.5.2013 to the Station House Officer,
Wazirganj, Lucknow. Though the order
dated 10.5.2013 of the High Court and
letter dated 10.5.2013 of the Senior
Registrar finds mention in letter of S.S.P.
dated 10.05.2013 but it is ensured with
ulterior motive that the FIR be not lodged
as per direction contained In the order
dated 10.5.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court
and the order dated 10.05.2013 of the Court
and letter dated 10.5.2013 of the Senior
Registrar be not made part of the casediary.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that Krishna Kumar Pandey,
a man of bad incident, managed to lodge
FIR dated 10.05.2013 with ulterior motive
and ensure that the order of the Hon'ble
High Court as well as letter of Registrar
dated 10.05.2013 be not made part of the
case diary.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that deponent has inspected
the file of Hon'ble High Court on 24.11.2022
and from perusal of the same which finds
place at page no.3 of the record, makes it
clear that Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey initially
did not name any person and his version of
FIR is totally absent in original application
given
to
Senior
Registrar
Sri
Alok
Mukherjee.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that from perusal of the
aforesaid, it is apparent that initially, there
was no name mentioned and his version of
FIR is totally absent in the application, but
later on with ulterior motive to cover up
serious financial and other irregularities to
prevent their reporting to the government and
to compel pairokar, government servant,
special counsel to loose cases of State
Government involving fraud and loot of State
Exchequer by Sri Kirshna Kumar Pandey,
Finance & Account Officer against whom
affidavits in the petitions in Hon'ble High
Court were filed and his conduct was also
brought to the notice of Higher Authorities
prior to 10.5.2013 and against whom serious
criminal cases are registered, he manages to
lodge F.I.R.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that actually, this change of
story
has
occurred
because
one
Mr.
Dhirendra Kumar singh, who was also
Finance & Accounts Officer, Lakhimpur
Khiri, who was in attendance before the
Hon'ble High Court in the above contempt,
against whom affidavit dated 10.5.2013 was
filed by the government servant through APP
I, against whom also the complaints were
forwarded to the State government and
enquiry was going on and against him serious
criminal cases are registered connived with
mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey. They wanted to
encash the opportunity to build pressure upon
those persons doing parivi of cases in which
enquiry was going on.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that Mr. Krishna Kumar
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1271
Pandey after giving his first application to
the Senior Registrar which has been quoted
hereinabove, in which there is no name of
any person including the deponent and his
version of FIR is totally absent, after being
provided security left the premises of
Hon'ble High Court along with Mr.
Dhirendra Kumar Singh on his Motorcycle
bearing No.UP-32 XV3674 and he has
given hand written note to the Senior
Registrar.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the first report given by
Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey and hand
written note givn by Mr. Krishna Kumar
Pandey have never been made part of casediary nor has ever surfaced in any
proceedings and it has come to the
knowledge
of
deponent
only
after
inspection of record of the Hon'ble High
Court on 24.11.2022.

It is worthwhile to mention that
handwritten note given by Mr. Krishna
Kumar Pandey are exactly same as the
story was narrated to the Hon'ble High
Court and the Hon'ble High Court passed
the order on 10.5.2013 and therefore, in
none of 4 documents i.e. order dated
10.5.2013,
handwritten
note
dated
10.5.2013 by Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey,
letter dated 10.5.2013 by the Senior
Registrar and letter dated 10.5.2013 by the
S.S.P., Lucknow there is no name of any
person and his version of FIR is totally
absent.

The story has been changed by
Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey in collusion
with Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh at police
station and they have almost succeeded in
using order of Hon'ble High Court as a tool
against the deponent and two other
innocent
persons
and,
therefore,
the
application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is being filed.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that FIR with ulterior
motive to cover up serious financial and
other
irregularities
to
prevent
their
reporting to the government and to compel
pairokar, Government servant, Special
Counsel
to
loose
cases
of
State
Government involving fraud and loot of
State Exchequer by Sri Krishna Kumar
Pandey, a Finance & Accounts Officer
against whom affidavits in the petitions in
Hon'ble High Court were filed and his
conduct was also brought to the notice of
higher authorities prior to 10.5.2013 and
against whom, serious criminal cases are
registered, comes into existence thanks to
Shri Alok Kumar Mukherjee.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the then Senior Registrar
wrote another letter dated 14.5.2013 to the
then S.S.P., Lucknow. The letter dated
10.5.2013 of Senior Registrar is made part of
the case diary. He next submitted that on
15.5.2015 Investigating Officer is changed and
Circle Officer who is below the rank of
Additional Superintendent of Police was made
Investigating Officer.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that tainted and manipulated
investigation results in filing of chargesheet
allegedly on 20.6.2013 under Section 506 IPC
by backdating the same which is evident from
perusal of case diary itself. He next submitted
that tainted and manipulated investigation and
tainted and manipulated further investigation
resulting in charge sheet under Section 506
IPC lasted till March, 2015.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that specific request was
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made vide letter Ptrank: Vad/9837-41/201314 dated 31.01.2014 copy of which was to
higher authorities for insuring bringing of
case diary along with report to the Hon'ble
Court in compliance of Hon'ble Court's
order dated 10.05.2013, but this letter is
neither part of the case diary nor is known
as to what has been done with it by Sri
Alok Kumar Mukherjee the then Senior
Registrar.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that to affect the pairvi of
the cases Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey
stopped salary of the Pairokar of the
department. The department came down
heavily upon him. Writ Petition No.415
(MB) of 2014 (Krishna Kumar Pandey v.
State of U.P. and others) was filed by him.
He narrated the events of 10.5.2013 in his
own ways and chargesheet under Section
506 IPC was made annexure. The Hon'ble
High Court got an inquiry conducted
against him in his writ petition and on
receiving adverse report against him the
Hon'ble High Court referred the matter to
the Government. In respect of aforesaid
averments letter dated 26.11.2014 written
by Special Secretary to Finance Secretary
for action against him is relevant.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the then District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar wrote letter
dated 1.6.2014 to the Director Treasury,
U.P., Lucknow copy of which was
forwarded to Principal Secretary, Basic
Education and Principal Secretary, Finance,
narrating the conduct of the Mr. Krishna
Kumar Pandey is not part of the case diary
though brought to the notice of I.O.

17. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that letter dated 11.11.2013
containing statement of the deponent under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. is part of the above
contempt petition, but not part of the case
diary. He next submitted that preparation of
fake
letters/
documents
causing
disappearance of documents including
order of Hon'ble High Court, record
pertaining
to
contempt
petition
no.688/2013 by not making them part of
the case diary changing pages of case diary
was done due to extraneous considerations.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that in the case diary dates
on which supervisory officer has seen the
case diary went missing since 16.5.2013.
The pages of the case diary have been
changed. It is not in running pages. He next
submitted that the case is not in running
page since CD-XI dated 24.5.2013. Case
diary is again in running pages since CDXVI dated 18.6.2013. SCD is not in
running
pages
what
is
written
by
Investigating Officer is different from
annexures of the SCD (SCD was written by
investigating officer Hirdesh Katheriya and
it was superivsed by Sri Ajay Kumar). Sri
Ajay Kumar remained associated with
tainted investigation till end.

19. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that neither any report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. along with case
diary was any further report under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. along with case diary was
brought to the Hon'ble High Court till
29.1.2018. The Cr.P.C. contemplates only
report under Section 173(2) along with case
diary or any further report under Section
173(8) along with case diary.

20. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that though there was
sufficient material/ papers in the case diary
indicating that the Hon'ble High Court is
seized with the matter. The Cr.P.C.
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1273
contemplates only one report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. with case diary or furuther
report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. with
the case diary.

21. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the cognizance is taken
in violation of Hon'ble High Court's order
dated 10.5.2013 passed in the above
contempt petition. He next submitted that
the order of Hon'ble High Court dated
10.5.2013 was violated by the then Senior
Registrar Sri Alok Mukherjee, investigating
officers and supervisory officers and court
below.

22. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the Hon'ble High Court
noted breach of it's order dated 10.5.2013
vide order dated 19.1.2018. He next
submitted that there is complete violation
of order dated 10.5.2013. Every act after
10.5.2013 was done in it's violation. No
one except the Hon'ble High Court or
Superior court is permitted to modify the
order of the Hon'ble High Court.

23. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that in respect of Special
Counsel/ APP I , who was appearing in
above contempt petition at the relevant
time on 10.5.2013 and in whose presence
order dated 10.5.2013 was passed by the
Hon'ble High Court, Government takes
decision to withdraw from prosecution
under Section 506 I.P.C.

24. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the Court below
rejected the application for withdrawal
from prosecution. The rejection order was
challenged
in
Criminal
Revision
No.1290/2017. The Hon'ble High Court
examined government order in respect of
withdrawal of prosecution under Section
506 IPC as well as application of the State
for withdrawal and took suo motor
cognizance of the matters, records finding
that
Public
Prosecution
had
applied
independent mind and rightly came to the
conclusion that revisionist was neither on
spot nor committed any offence. Criminal
Revision No.1290/2017 became Revision
of the Hon'ble High Court. The relevant
portion of the order of Hon'ble High Court
is being reproduced as under.

"Certified copy of the withdrawal
application moved under Section 321,
Cr.P.C. and the Government Order dated
14th March, 2017 shown to the court are
taken on record.

.... This is an application having
five grounds which reflects that the Public
Prosecutor has independelty applied his
mind and had gone through the material
available on record and came to the
opinion that the revisionist had not
committed any offence, he was not on the
spot, by observing that too on the basis of
presumption that the revisionist has acted
adversely affecting to the dignity of this
court appears to be uncalled for."

25. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that in violation of order
passed in Criminal Revision No.1290/2017
the
application
for
withdrawal
from
prosecution was again rejected by the Court
Below. The rejection order was challenged
by the State in Criminal Revision No.711
of 2019 (State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar
Srivastava) in which the informant was
heard at the stage of delay, admission and
final hearing, thereafter criminal revision
was allowed by order dated 14.9.2020.

26. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that ignoring the orders of
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the two revisional court's order in criminal
revision nos.1290/2017 and 711 of 2019,
two separate orders one on application of
the State for withdrawal from prosecution
examined and upheld by the two Revisional
Courts in the said criminal revisions but
disowned by the State and other on State's
Application dated 3.3.2021 pertaining to
State's fresh application dated 23.9.2020 in
respect of it's withdrawal were passed. The
two orders led to filing of two separate
criminal revisions i.e. Criminal Revision
No.85/2021 (State of U.P. v. Krishna
Kumar Pandey and Criminal Revision
No.86 of 2021 (State of U.P. v. Krishna
Kumar Pandey) by the State. The criminal
revisions of the State were allowed on
30.4.2022.

27. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that as there was noncompliance of the order dated 14.9.2020
passed in Criminal Revision No.711 of
2019, Contempt Petition No.398 of 2022
was filed. During the pendency of this
contempt
petition,
State's
criminal
revisions bearing Nos.85/21 and 85/21
were allowed, therefore for violation of
order
passed
in
Criminal
Revision
No.86/2021, contempt petition no.1337 of
2022 was filed.

28. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that it is pertinent to bring
to the notice of Hon'ble High court and
transfer application bearing C.M.C. No.646
of 2022 was filed before the learned
District Judge. The C.M.C. No.646/2022
was allowed vide order dated 13.7.2022

29. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the applicant again filed
application dated 30.7.2022 for closure of
the case under Section 506 IPC and State
filed written submissions dated 30.7.2022
in support of it's order of the court below
on application dated 30.7.2022 filed by the
applicant. He next submitted that the Court
Below
i.e.
Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./
Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow again became
aware of the above conclusive conclusion
regarding alleged offence under Section
506 IPC through paras of the contempt
petition nos.398 of 2022 and contempt
petition no.1337 of 2022 and impleadment
application dated 14.9.2022 containing
application dated 30.7.2022 of the applicant
as well as written submissions dated
30.7.2022 filed by the State.

30. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that after continuous orders
of the Hon'ble High Court the Court Below
filed affidavit of compliance in both the
contempt petitions i.e. in contempt petition
no.398/22
and
in
contempt
petition
no.1337/2022 on 17.10.2022. The Court
Below has brought on record order dated
26.9.2022 said to have been passed in
compliance of the order of Criminal
Revision No.86 of 2021. The orders dated
17.10.2022 in contempt petition no.398/22
and in contempt petition no.1337/22 were
passed.

31. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that in respect of orders
dated 17.10.2022 in contempt petition
no.398/2022 and in contempt petition
no.13337/2022 recall application was filed
and was not pressed. He next submitted
that the order dated 26.9.2022 of the Court
Below
i.e.
Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./
Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow does not
contain written submissions of the State
filed on 30.7.2022. He next submitted that
the order dated 26.09.2022 of the Court
Below
i.e.
Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./
Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow wrongly
mentions submissions of State/ mentions
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1275
submissions of State never made by State
as is evident from written submissions of
the State filed on 30.7.2022.

32. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that order dated 26.9.2022
of the Court Below i.e. Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./ Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow which
does not contain submissions of State, as is
evident from written submissions of the
State filed on 30.7.2022 would not qualify
as legal order.

33. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that order dated 26.9.2022
by the Court Below i.e. Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./ Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow is not
confined to State's application dated
23.9.2020 for withdrawal and application's
dated 21.12.2022 and 30.01.2021 filed in
it's support. No objection was filed by the
informant to these applications.

34. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the order dated
26.9.2022 by the Court below i.e. Special
A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./
Ayodhya
Prakaran,
Lucknow is on State's application dated
9.6.2017 upheld in Criminal Revision
No.1290 of 2017 by Hon'ble High Court
and in Criminal Revision No.711/2019 by
learned Sessions Court and never pressed
by the State after the judgment and order
dated 14.9.2020 in Criminal Revision
No.711 of 2019 as is evident from the stand
of the State indicated in para 1 of the
written submissions of the State filed on
30.7.2022. After the judgment and order
dated 14.9.220 in Criminal Revision
No.711/ 2019 State's application dated
23.9.2020 for withdrawal was filed under
changed circumstances. State's application
dated 23.9.2020 is based on conclusive
conclusion regarding alleged offence under
Section 506 I.P.C. recorded in Criminal
Revision No.711 of 2019 by learned
Sessions court. The State confined only to
it's
application
dated
23.9.2020
for
withdrawal
and
applications
dated
21.12.2020 and 30.01.2021 filed in it's
support. No objection was filed by the
informant in these applications.

35. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that order dated 26.9.2022
of the Court Below i.e. Special A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./ Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in sum
and substance repetition in English of
earlier set aside order dated 10.2.2021. He
next submitted that above conclusive
conclusion regarding alleged offence under
Section 506 I.P.C. is not found mentioned
in any order of any Magistrate including
Special
A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I./
Ayodhya
Prakaran, Lucknow due to ulterior motive
despite continuously bringing the same to
their notice.

36. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the applications filed by
the applicant particularly application dated
29.11.2021
for
summoning
informant
Krishna Kumar Pandey as accused, though
pressed on each date, have been kept
pending for extraneous reasons. He next
submitted
that
the
Court
Below
is
proceeding against law due to extraneous
considerations.

37. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the orders in all the
criminal revisions viz. Criminal Revision
No.1290/2017, Criminal Revision No.711 of
2019 and Criminal Revision No.85 of 2021
as well as order dated 13.7.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Case No.646 of 2022,
Criminal Revision No.85 of 2021 and
Criminal Revision No.86 of 2021 take note of
the orders in Criminal Revision No.1290 of
2017, Criminal Revision No.711 of 2019.
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

38. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that there is no order of the
Court below in compliance of the Criminal
Revision No.85 of 2021 and on application
dated 30.04.2022 filed by the State. He
next submitted that a false case under
Section 506 IPC has been instituted to
harass and affect the parivi of the cases of
the Basic Education Department.

39. Learned counsel for the applicant
next
submitted
that
after
conclusive
conclusion regarding alleged offence under
Section 506 IPC made in Criminal
Revision No.711 of 2019 the trial before
the Court Below neither remains warrant
trial nor summon trial nor summary trial.
The proceedings before the Court below in
respect of alleged offence under Section
506 IPC goes.

40. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that after examination of case
diary including chargesheet and coming to
definite conclusive conclusion regarding
alleged offence under Section 506 IPC by
learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision
No.711 of 2019 there was no legally valid
chargesheet under Section 506 IPC to be
acted upon by the court Below. Only formal
order in respect of acceptance of withdrawal
of the State as well as closure of the case
under Section 506 IPC was required to be
passed by the Court Below. He next
submitted
that
the
above
conclusion
regarding alleged offence under Section 506
IPC is not found mentioned in any order of
Court Below despite continuously bringing
the same to it's notice and the case under
Section 506 IPC is being continued in
violation of law.

41. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that despite continuous prayer
for closure of case under Section 506 IPC by
the applicant and acceptance of application
for withdrawal from prosecution by the State
the same has not been done.

42. Learned counsel for the next
submitted that it is settled law by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that court has a duty to issue
appropriate directions for remedying or
rectifying the things done in violation of the
orders. In that regard the court may even take
restitutive
measures
at
any
state
of
proceedings. It is also settled law that all
Courts are vested with inherent powers to
undo a wrong which may have occurred on
account of a mistake of the court causing
prejudice to a party.

43. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) ABCD v. Union of India and
others reported in (2020)2 Supreme
Court Cases 52.

(ii) Vidya Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others reported
in (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 569.

(iii) Smt. Sarita Singh v. State
of U.P. reported 2022(40) LCD 871

(iv) Dr. J.S. Yadav v. Dr. Anil
Kumar Upadhyay and others reported in
2022(40) LCD 1415

(v) Barangore Jute Factory
PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and others
v. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. And
others report (2017)5 Supreme Court
Cases 506

(vi)
Delhi
Development
Authority
v.
Skipper
Construction
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1277
Co.(P) Ltd. and others reported (1996) 4
Supreme Court Cases 622.

(vii) A.V. Papyya Sastry and
others v. Govt. of A.P. and others
reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 221

(viii) Hamza Haji v. State of
Kerala and another reported in (2006) 7
Supreme Court Cases 416: 2006 SCC
OnLine SC 842.

44. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant and have carefully examined the
material on record in context of the
controversy involved in the application that
whether the procedure after order dated
10.5.2023 passed by this Court has been
followed in accordance with law or not.

45. To understand the controversy
from the initial stage, order dated 10.5.2013
passed
by
the
Court
is
extracted
hereinbelow:

"While proceedings in this case
was going on, one Sri Krishna Kumar
Pandey, Finance and Accounts Officer
(Basic), District Ambedkar Nagar, who was
present and whose matter (Criminal Misc.
Case No.688 (C) of 2013) was just now
decided, rushed inside the Court crying and
weeping and shouted that he has been
beaten outside the Court and his spectacles
have also been damaged.

Registrar is directed to take
appropriate steps of his safety and
protection and lodge First Information
Report against the erring persons. It shall
be ensured that investigation in the matter
shall be completed expeditiously, and, in
any case within 15 days and the report
shall be produced before this Court.

Since
outside
the
Court,
Advocates have created an unwanted and
unruly scene, and Registrar has not made
proper arrangement for smooth functioning
of this Court, this Court has no opinion but
to rise."

46. Perusal of the above-extracted
order shows that direction was to the Senior
Registrar to take appropriate steps of his
safety and protection and lodge First
Information Report against the erring
persons and it shall be ensured that
investigation in the matter shall be
completed expeditiously, and, in any case
within 15 days and the report shall be
produced before this Court.

47. It is also pertinent to note that Sri
Krishna Kumar Pandey, Finance and
Accounts
Officer
(Basic),
District
Ambedkar Nagar has not named any
persons before this Court who did this act.

48. Perusal of the letters dated
10.5.2013 of Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey
and the Senior Registrar indicate that
incident has been noted in the letters;
thereafter, requested to give protection to
Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey; and send Shri
Kumar Pandey along with complaint dated
10.5.2013
to
get
an
F.I.R.
lodged
immediately and ensure that the above
matter is investigated by some officer not
below
the
rank
of
Additional
Superintendent
of
Police
and
take
necessary action in accordance with law
and submit report to this Court within 15
days so that the same may be placed before
the Hon'ble court as directed.

49. At the time of lodging of F.I.R.,
names of certain persons have been
included as named accused along with
unknown
advocates.
On
15.5.2015,
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigating Officer has been changed and
Circle Officer who is below the rank of
Additional Superintendent of Police was
made Investigation Officer and after
investigation, the authority instead of
producing the report before this Court as
directed on 10.5.2023 submitted chargesheet under Section 506 IPC before the
Magistrate
concerned,
upon
which
cognizance was taken.

50. Taking into account the aforesaid
aspects of the matter, the Coordinate Bench
of this Cout vide order dated 29.1.2018,
directed that in compliance of order dated
10.5.2013, the entire case diary be
produced before this Court by some
responsible
officer
of
the
Court
of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Lucknow on the next date fixed i.e.
29.1.2018.

51. In respect of Special counsel who
was appearing in above contempt petition at
the relevant point of time on 10.5.2013 and in
whose presence order dated 10.5.2013 was
passed by the Court, Government took
decision to withdrawn from prosecution
under Section 506 I.P.C. and filed an
application for withdrawal from prosecution
before the Court-Below which was rejected.
Aggrieved by the said decision, Criminal
Revision No.1290 of 2017 was filed and after
examining the Government Order in respect
of withdrawal of prosecution under Section
506 IPC as well as application of the State for
withdrawal and takes suo moto cognizance of
the matter, has recorded finding that Public
Prosecutor had applied independent mind and
rightly came to the conclusion that the
revisionist (Special Counsel) was neither on
the sport nor committed any offence.

52. Thereafter, an application for
withdrawal from prosecution was also filed
which was rejected. Aggrieved by the said
rejection, Criminal Revision No.711 of
2019 (State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar
Srivastava) was filed allowed with the
following observations:

^^ ek= dg nsus ls kedh ds rF;
lkfcr ugha gksrs gSa tcrd fd LorU= xokgksa]
fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ;k deZpkjh ;k iqfyl ds
deZpkjh ds c;ku leFkZu u djrs gksa] bl lEcU/k
esa vfHk;kstu lk{; iqjh rjg /kedh ds ckcr ekSu
gSaA**

** dsoy kedh ds laca/k esa ek=
vkSipkfjdrk fuHkkus ds fy, 506 vkbZihlh esa
vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS tks dsl Mk;jh esa
fy;s x;s Lora= xokgksa ,oa vf/koDrkx.k ds c;kuksa
ls iqf"V ugha gksrh gSaA**

**ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh
fu"df"kZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd vfHk;kstu i{k dh
vksj ls tks eqdnek okilh dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k
x;k Fkk og Lora= eu ls] mRrj izns'k ljdkj
}kjk eqdnek okilh ds uksfVfQds'ku ij fopkj
djrs gq, eqdnek okilh dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k
FkkA

bl rjg ls bl U;k;ky; ds er ls
fuxjkuhdrkZ@ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk izLrqr
eqdnek okilh dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS
og Lora= eu ls i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds
vkyksD; esa xoZesUV }kjk eqdnek okilh fd;s x;s
uksfVfQds'ku /;ku esa j[kdj izLrqr fd;k x;k
gSA

** tSlk fd mijksDr foospu fd;k tk
pqdk gS fd tgkW eqdnesa esa nks"kflf} dh laHkkouk,a
i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls u gks rFkk eqdnek
okilh ds vkns'k dks xoZesUV ds uksfVfQds'ku dks
fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh u fn;k x;k gks
rFkk orZeku esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
izLrqr izdj.k esa fuxjkuh vkns'k ds }kjk
fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk t;ksfrZe; oekZ }kjk izLrqr
ekeys esa i=koryh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ls
?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr u gksus ds lk{; gks]------**
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1279

53. This Court has once again
directed to hear the matter after providing
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
first
informant.

54. Learned counsel for the applicant
in support of submissions cited the several
judgments
operative
portions
of
the
judgment is extracted herein below.

(i) ABCD (Supra):-

16. It has also been laid down by
this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [Chandra
Shashi v. Anil
Kumar
Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
239] that a person who makes an attempt
to deceive the court, interferes with the
administration of justice and can be held
guilty of contempt of court. In that case a
husband who had filed a fabricated
document to oppose the prayer of his wife
seeking
transfer
of
matrimonial
proceedings was found guilty of contempt
of court and sentenced to two weeks'
imprisonment. It was observed as under:
(SCC pp. 423-24 & 427, paras 1-2 & 14)

"1. The stream of administration
of justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters
of
judicial
firmament
are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to
fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only
to punish them for the wrong done, but also
to deter others from indulging in similar
acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.

***

14. The legal position thus is that
if the publication be with intent to deceive
the court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of
justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is
filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

(ii) Vidya Devi (Supra) :-

12.13. In a
case
where
the
demand for justice is so compelling, a
constitutional court would exercise its
jurisdiction with a view to promote justice,
and
not
defeat
it.
[P.S.
Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1
SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22]

(iii) Smt Sarita Singh (Supra):-

For Several years, in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the game of appointing
teachers by the management of the
educational
institutions
without
prior
permission for creation of posts and then
coming to the court for payment of salary
has been going on and, several thousands
crore rupees of tax payers money has been
paid to such appointees on the basis of
interim/final orders passed by this Court.
Therefore, it is not only committee of
management and such appointees, who are
Culprits, but the officials in the Education
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department have equal share in the
culpability.

(iv) Dr. J S Yadav (Supra):-

22. Thus, it can take note of such
act and pass such orders under the
contempt jurisdiction where the acts
adversely affects the majesty of law or
dignity of the Court. However, at the same
time, it must be well remembered that the
jurisdiction is not to protect the dignity of
an individua judge but to protect the
administration
of
justice
from
being
maligned.

23. The Courts of law do not pass
futile orders. However, once an order is
passed, the same is binding on the parties
and must be capable of being executed
and complied with. It will be of no value
if the Court is unable to get its orders
complied with or else, the public shall
loose faith and it would reflect most
inappropriately on the judicial system.
Thus, the orders passed by the Court have
to be taken to their logical conclusion so
that the faith of the public at large
remains intact and the orders of the
Court are not to be taken lightly by those
who are bound to comply with the same.

(v) Mazdoor Sangh (supra) :-

23. As
held
by
this
Court
in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P)
Ltd. [DDA v.