# Manish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 1205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-16
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 1531 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-49630
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
summoning
order-charge
sheet
and
summoning order impugned- FIR registered
against unknown persons-circulation of letter on
social media issued in the name of MLA (BJP) on
his letter pad-seeking information of criminal
cases against various political persons- found
forged-Applicant is journalist-posted the letter
as he received it from a reputed media personMLA denied the letter and his signature-prima
facie case is made out.

Applicant dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Manish Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205

11. इस सांबांध में दकसी कठोर दनयम को
दनधाषररि करना न िो सांभव है न ही वाांछनीय है जो
दनदहि क्षेत्रादधकार के उपयोग को दनयांदत्रि करेगा।
इस शस्ि के प्रयोग में बहुि सावधानी बरिने की
आवश्यकिा है। इस शस्ि का प्रयोग दकसी वैध
अदभयोजन को रोकने के दलए प्रयुि नहीां दकया जाना
चादहए।

12. पवन कुमार भालोकतया बनाम पकिम
बोंगाल राज्य 2005 CRLJ 1810 उच्चतम न्यायालय में
अवधाररि दकया गया है दक जहाँ िजष दकया गया
अपराध केवल यादचकाकिाष को उत्पीदडि करने का
होगा वहाँ इस शस्ि के अांिगषि िास्ण्डक कायषवाही
खस्ण्डि दकया जा सकेगा। आमिौर पर उच्च
न्यायालय को अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के आपरादधक
मामले की कायषवाही में हस्तक्षेप नहीां करना चादहए,
लेदकन अवैध अदभयोजन के िुष्पररणाम से सुरदक्षि
रखने के दलए इस धारा की शस्ियोां को उच्च
न्यायालय द्वारा प्रयोग दकया जा सकिा है। जहाँ
िण्डादधकारी के समक्ष प्रदक्रया जारी करने के दलए
पयाषप्त सामग्री दवद्यमान है। अदभयुि उसे इस धारा
के अांिगषि चुनौिी िेने का अदधकारी नहीां है। टी.जे.
स्टीफेन बनाम पाले बाटकलोंग कों०प्रा०कल० AIR
1985 उच्चतम न्यायालय 994 में यह अवधाररि दकया
गया है दक दववेचना के अदभलेखोां का सांिभष िेखिे
हुए जब दक कम्प्प्लेण्ट में आरोदपि िथ् प्रथम दृष्टया
अपराध काररि करने का वणषन करिे हैं। ऐसे
कम्प्प्लेण्ट को खस्ण्डि नहीां दकया जा सकिा।

13. प्राथीगण का यह कथन है दक िुभाषवनापूणष
ढांग से यह प्रथम सूचना ररपोटष िजष करायी गयी िथा
आरोप पत्र प्रस्तुि दकया गया। मैक कुलोच बनाम
पकिम बोंगाल राज्य 1974 CRLJ 182 कलकत्ता उच्च
न्यायालय में यह अवधाररि दकया गया दक यह प्रश्न
दक अदभयुि के पास घटना काररि करने का
आपरादधक िुराशय दवद्यमान था अथवा नहीां, दवचारण
में सम्यक सामग्री एवां साक्ष्य प्रस्तुि कर ही िेखा जा
सकिा है िथा ऐसी िशा में उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
अपनी अांिषदनदहि शस्ियोां का प्रयोग नहीां दकया जाना
चादहए। िथ् िथा दनष्कर्ष के सांबांध में अांिषदनदहि
शस्ि के अांिगषि हस्तक्षेप नहीां दकया जा सकिा। इस
स्तर पर उच्च न्यायालय यह जाांच नहीां कर सकिा
दक आरोप साक्ष्य से स्थादपि होांगे अथवा नहीां।

आदेि

उपरोि आधारोां पर इस न्यायालय का यह
दनष्कर्ष है दक प्राथीगण द्वारा दिया गया आधार धारा
482 ि०प्र०सां० के प्राथषना पत्र को स्ीकार कर
उपरोि वाि की कायषवाही एवां आरोप पत्र को
खस्ण्डि करने के दलए युस्ियुि आधार नहीां हैं।
अिैव प्राथषना पत्र अांिगषि धारा 482 ि०प्र०सां० ििनुसार
खाररज दकया जािा है।
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 1531 of 2023

Manish Kumar Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Prince Lenin

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
summoning
order-charge
sheet
and
summoning order impugned- FIR registered
against unknown persons-circulation of letter on
social media issued in the name of MLA (BJP) on
his letter pad-seeking information of criminal
cases against various political persons- found
forged-Applicant is journalist-posted the letter
as he received it from a reputed media personMLA denied the letter and his signature-prima
facie case is made out.

Applicant dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C. 866,

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426,

3. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cri.)283
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Prince Lenin, the
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Shri Vinod Kumar Sahi, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Diwakar
Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party No. 1 and perused the
record.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant-Manish Kumar
Pandey for quashing of the charge-sheet
dated 30.09.2021 bearing No.1 of 2021 and
the proceedings related to the applicant in
Case No. 1730 of 2022, pending in the
Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Custom, Lucknow arising out of Crime No.
228 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 465,
469, 471, 153-A, 153-B, 505 (1) (b), 505
(2) I.P.C. and Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, Police Station Hazratganj,
District Lucknow as well as summoning
order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the
Special CJM Custom, Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that as per the prosecution case on
21.08.2020 an F.I.R. was registered against
unknown persons by the informant/Sub
Inspector of Police Station Hazratganj,
District Lucknow bearing FIR No. 0228
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 469, 471,
153-A, 153-B, 505(1) (b), 505 (2) I.P.C.
and under Section 66 of Information and
Technology Act, 2008, while being on duty
noticed circulation of a letter on the social
media platform, namely, whatsapp/twitter
issued in the name of MLA (BJP) Sri Dev
Mani Dwivedi on a letter pad bearing Serial
No.
Ka-6,
No.
459473
and
letter
no.UPMLA/2/87 dated 20.08.20 addressed
to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
regarding
providing
information
of
criminal cases registered against various
political persons. It is further alleged that
on perusal it was noticed that the signature
was in different name in the letter pad and
on verification sought it was found to be
forged. It is further alleged that forged
letter pad was prepared for spreading
communal hatred in the State of Uttar
Pradesh and to defame the image of the
present Government.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the allegations made in the
impugned F.I.R. are absolutely false,
frivolous and are not made out against the
applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant is a
Journalist by profession and is also having
several social media accounts including
Twitter account wherein several posts
pertaining to political as well as social
events are being shared and the information
in the form of news is shared by the
applicant on issues existing in the social
media and elsewhere.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that on 21.08.2020 the
applicant received a copy of the letter dated
20.08.2020 from a reputed media person
working as Editor/State Head of a Regional
News
Channel
named
India
News
U.P./U.K.. alleged to be issued by Sri Dev
Mani Dwivedi, Member of Legislative
Assembly, U.P. from the present ruling
party was spreading in the social media
addressed in the name of Additional Chief
Secretary, Home, Government of U.P.
wherein certain names of the political
persons of one community with number of
criminal cases against their name were
2 All. Manish Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
mentioned thereby seeking explanation
regarding action taken within last three
years. Copy of the Letter Pad is filed as
Annexure No. 1 to the applicant filed in
support of the application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant shared the
aforesaid letter issued by the BJP MLA on
his
Twitter
account.
Thereafter,
the
applicant had made another post. The copy
of the post on Twitter account is filed as
Annexure No.3 and 4 to the affidavit filed
in support of the application.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the letter shared by the
applicant on his twitter was purely in form
of a news report and was not shared with
any intention to spread communal terror or
to defame the image of the present
Government.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that on 30.09.2021 the
impugned Charge Sheet No.1 of 2021
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 469, 471,
153-A, 153-B, 505 (1) (b), 505 (2) I.P.C.
and
Section
66
of
the
Information
Technology
Act
was
filed
by
the
Investigating Officer before the court
concerned after due investigation and on
12.01.2022, learned court below had taken
cognizance and issued process against the
applicant and seven other accused persons
on the basis of the material that the
applicant on his Twitter account posted and
shared the letter of the BJP MLA only with
the intention to spread communal terror and
to defame the image of the present
Government.

10. Furtther contention of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that no offence
against the applicant is disclosed and the
present prosecution has been instituted with
a malafide intention for the purposes of
harassment and defaming the image of the
applicant in the society.

11. Per contra, the learned Additional
Advocate General has contended that the
applicant claims himself to be Journalist,
but he has not annexed any relevant
document or licence issued to him
regarding his profession by any authority.
The applicant himself admitted this fact in
the instant application that he had shared
the aforesaid letter pad of the MLA Sri Dev
Mani Dwivedi on his Twitter handle.
Learned Additional Advocate General has
drawn attention of this Court towards the
tweet shared by the applicant on his tweeter
handle on 21August, which is reproduced
as under:

"# chtsih ds yaHkqvk fo/kk;d nsoef.k f}osnh dk
ljdkj ij ,d vkSj geykA 16 ekuuh;ksa dh fyLV
muds eqdnesa ds lkFk tkjh dj vij eq[; lfpo x`g
ls buds Åij yafcr eqdneksa esa fiNys rhu lkyksa dh
djokbZ dk C;kSjk ekaxkA"

12. Learned Additional Advocate General
further submits that the applicant had tweeted the
aforesaid letter pad of Sri Dev Mani Dwivedi,
Member of Legislative Assembly of the ruling
party (BJP) with the intention to defame the
image of the ruling party in the State and to
create communal terror and the said action of the
applicant helped him in creating an ploy for him.
He tried to defame the image of the U.P.
Government led by the Chief Minister. The
Government is working in the State for the peace
and harmony of the people and for overall
development in the State. The said action of the
applicant is crime against the State and does not
deserve any sympathy by this Court.

13. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of the materials
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record and looking into the facts of the
case, it could not be stated that no offence
has been made out against the applicant.
Every
person
including
the
present
applicant has the freedom of speech and the
right to express his thoughts and ideas in
general public as guaranteed by the
Constitution of India, but such freedom
should not be used in such a way that it
would result in affecting the peace and
tranquillity in the society. No such word or
remark should be uttered that would
created disharmony in the society. The
allegation for spreading incorrect facts,
without verifying and sharing the same
through twitter handles, has also been
levelled against the applicant. On account
of sharing of incorrect facts on twitter
handles, there was a chance of violation of
public peace and tranquillity in the Society.
The intention of the applicant was just to
defame
the
image
of
the
present
Government in the State and to create
communal terror which is direct attack to
disturb the peace and harmony of the State.
No one can be given the licence to disturb
the peace ad tranquillity in the society, even
though the applicant was not given
authority under the law to do all such type
of act for which he has no authority. There
is already State machinery to look after the
law and order of the State, even though
from the action of the applicant it appears
that his intention was not fair and wants to
disturb the peace of the State and after due
investigating the charge-sheet has been
filed and the learned Magistrate took
cognizance on the charge sheet, which
reflects that cognizable offence is made out
against the applicant.

14. The applicant in para 9 and 10 of
the affidavit in support of the application
himself stated this fact that during the
course of investigation the statement of the
MLA Sri Dev Mani Dwivedi was recorded
by the Investigating Officer on 23.08.2022
and the MLA denied the issuance of the
letter and his signature, thus this shows that
the Blank Letter Pad of the concerned MLA
was obtained and to gain undue advantage
and with the intention to disturb the peace
and harmony of the State, the material was
written and forged signature was made and
posted on Twitter handle account, which is
a very serious matter.

15. From the allegations made in the
FIR/Charge-sheet and cognizance order,
prima facie offence is made out against the
applicant. The innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage.
Therefore, the applicant does not deserve
any indulgence. There also appears force in
the
argument
of
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
that
the
present
Government is working in the interest of
the State and for the peace and harmony of
the people and for the overall development
in the State.

16. At the stage of issuing process the
court below is not expected to examine and
assess in detail the material placed on
record, only this has to be seen whether
prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed
or not and in the present case there is an
allegation for spreading incorrect facts,
without verifying and sharing the same
through twitter handles and there was a
chance of violation of peace and tranquility
in the Society. The Apex Court has also laid
down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
2 All. Madan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

17. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage.
The test to be applied by the court is to
whether uncontroverted allegation as made
prima facie establishes the offence and the
chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no
useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.
In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of
the criminal proceedings is an exception than a
rule. The inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect
an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of High
Court is very wide but should be exercised
very cautiously to do real and substantial
justice for which the court alone exists.

18. The High Court would not
embark upon an inquiry as it is the
function of the Trial Judge/Court. The
interference
at
the
threshold
of
quashing
of
the
charge
sheet,
proceeding of the case and summoning
order in the case in hand cannot be
said to be exceptional as it discloses
prima
facie
commission
of
an
cognizable offence. In the result, the
prayer for quashing is refused. There is
no merit in this application filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is liable to be
dismissed.

19. In view of the discussions made
above, this application filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C., for the relief as prayed for, is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1209
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ Tax No. 1120 of 2022

Madan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ankur Agrawal (Standing Counsel)

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules , 1998Rule 18-Recovery citation on account of motor
vehicle
tax-impugned-the
vehicle
of
the
Petitioner hypothecated with finance companyunable to pay the loan-surrendered the vehicle
for recovery of loan amount-informed about the
surrendering
the
vehicle-no
liability
after
possession taken by the financer-financier liable
to pay tax-objection by the Petitioner to be
considered by the competent authority-liability
may be re-worked.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 5 SCC 525

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Recovery citation dated July 3,
2022 issued against the petitioner, on