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

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-02
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 11016 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manjeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51139
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 406 -Charge-Sheet Quashed - The
petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated
29.01.2023
and
summoning
order
dated
31.03.2023 in a case under Section 406 IPC,
arising from an FIR lodged on 10.11.2022 -
Held, the charge-sheet was quashed due to an
unexplained delay of over four years in lodging
the FIR and lack of sufficient evidence to
establish an offence under Section 406 IPC.
(Paras 4, 16, 17)

B. Unexplained Delay in FIR - Fatal to
Prosecution - The FIR was lodged after a
delay of more than four years, exceeding the
three-year limitation period for Section 406 IPC
- Held, as per Amrit Lal Vs Shanti Lal Soni and
Sarah Mathew Vs Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases, the relevant date for limitation under
Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the
complaint, and the unexplained delay rendered
the prosecution unsustainable. (Paras 8, 9, 14,
15)

C. Lack of Evidence for Section 406 IPC -
The prosecution failed to provide material
evidence to support the charge of criminal
breach of trust under Section 406 IPC - Held,
the charge-sheet was filed without corroborating
evidence, and the trial court's cognizance was
an abuse of process, as per St. of Haryana Vs
Bhajan Lal. (Paras 7, 10, 16)

D. Delay in FIR and Risk of Embellishment
- The court relied on Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs
St. of Chhattisgarh and Jai Prakash Singh Vs St.
of Bihar to hold that an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging an FIR risks
introducing a colored version or exaggerated
account,
undermining
its
reliability
and
truthfulness. (Paras 13, 14)

E. Inherent Powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
Preventing Abuse of Process - The court
exercised its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, finding that
continuing the prosecution would misuse the
legal process and defeat the ends of justice,
given the lack of evidence and unexplained
delay. (Paras 12, 16, 17)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
are hereby quashed qua the applicant(s) of
APPLICATION U/S 482 No.12429 of 2023
namely Arvind Singh Bhadauria and
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 12443 of
2023
namely
Karamveer
Tripathi,
Dharmveer Tripathi and Akhilesh Tripathi.

a. Proceedings of Criminal Case
No.95018
of
2019;
(State
Versus
Karamveer Tripathi and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.71 of 2018, under
Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C., Police StationMahanagar, District- Lucknow, pending in
the Court of learned Special Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran), Lucknow, as well as impugned
charge-sheet
dated
23.8.2019
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya Prakaran),
Lucknow.

b. Proceedings of Criminal Case No.
10694 of 2020; (State Versus Surya Lal
Yadav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections-
341, 323, 506 I.P.C.,Police StationMahanagar, District- Lucknow, pending in
the Court of learned Special Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya
Prakaran), Lucknow, as well as impugned
charge-sheet
dated
15.8.2019,
and
impugned cognizance and summoning
order dated 18.1.2020, passed by the
learned Special Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (C.B.I./Ayodhya Prakaran),
Lucknow.

12. In regard to Application U/S 482
No.5525 of 2023, the victim and the
applicants have settled the dispute amicably
out of the court and to the same effect, a
compromise was entered into and the same
has already been verified by the trial court
on 03.05.2023 in terms of the earlier order
of this Court dated 25.04.2023 passed in
Application U/S 482 No.8536 of 2019
and taking note of the same as also the
accusation made against the applicants in
the FIR as also the observations made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramawatar (supra), this Court is of the
view that chances of conviction of
applicants are extremely bleak and no
fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping the proceeding pending against
the
applicants
of
this
application.
Accordingly, the Application U/S 482
No.5525 of 2023 is allowed. The entire
proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 362 of
2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 256
of 2017 under section 147, 279, 337, 233,
504, 506 &452 IPC read with section
3(1)(D)& 3(2) V(A) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station.-Kamrauli,
District
Amethi
including the charge-sheet submitted by
the police in Criminal Case no. 256 of
2017 as also the cognizance and the
summoning
order
dated
20-07-2019
passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act
at court no. 2, District Sultanpur, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants namely
Khursheed and Rihan.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11016 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Applicant:
Adarsh Shukla, Rajiv Raman Srivastava
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 406 -Charge-Sheet Quashed - The
petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated
29.01.2023
and
summoning
order
dated
31.03.2023 in a case under Section 406 IPC,
arising from an FIR lodged on 10.11.2022 -
Held, the charge-sheet was quashed due to an
unexplained delay of over four years in lodging
the FIR and lack of sufficient evidence to
establish an offence under Section 406 IPC.
(Paras 4, 16, 17)

B. Unexplained Delay in FIR - Fatal to
Prosecution - The FIR was lodged after a
delay of more than four years, exceeding the
three-year limitation period for Section 406 IPC
- Held, as per Amrit Lal Vs Shanti Lal Soni and
Sarah Mathew Vs Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases, the relevant date for limitation under
Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the
complaint, and the unexplained delay rendered
the prosecution unsustainable. (Paras 8, 9, 14,
15)

C. Lack of Evidence for Section 406 IPC -
The prosecution failed to provide material
evidence to support the charge of criminal
breach of trust under Section 406 IPC - Held,
the charge-sheet was filed without corroborating
evidence, and the trial court's cognizance was
an abuse of process, as per St. of Haryana Vs
Bhajan Lal. (Paras 7, 10, 16)

D. Delay in FIR and Risk of Embellishment
- The court relied on Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs
St. of Chhattisgarh and Jai Prakash Singh Vs St.
of Bihar to hold that an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging an FIR risks
introducing a colored version or exaggerated
account,
undermining
its
reliability
and
truthfulness. (Paras 13, 14)

E. Inherent Powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
Preventing Abuse of Process - The court
exercised its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, finding that
continuing the prosecution would misuse the
legal process and defeat the ends of justice,
given the lack of evidence and unexplained
delay. (Paras 12, 16, 17)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Amrit Lal Vs Shanti Lal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 248

2. Sarah Mathew Vs Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62

3. Krishna Pillai Vs T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp
SCC 121

4. Bharat Damodar Kale Vs St. of A.P., (2003) 8
SCC 559

5. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394

6. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs St. of Chhattisgarh,
(2016) 9 SCC 1

7. Jai Prakash Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (2012) 4
SCC 379

8. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Shukla, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Sri
Aniruddha
Singh,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned
Additional Government Advocate has filed
counter affidavit, today in the Court, the
same is taken on record.

3. As per the office report dated
04.12.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District-Lakhimpur Kheri has apprised the
Court that the notice has been served upon
the opposite party No.2 in person, however,
1 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
279
no one has appeared on behalf of opposite
party No.2.

4. By means of this petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner
has assailed the impugned Charge-sheet
No.01 dated 29.01.2023 pending in the
Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/
F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case
No.1450 of 2013 (State vs. Manjeet Singh)
arising out of Case Crime No.618 of 2022,
under Section 406 I.P.C., Police StationBheera, District-Kheri as well as the
summoning order dated 31.03.2023 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
Lakhimpur Kheri.

5. The precise contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned First Information Report (in
short F.I.R.) bearing No.618 of 2022, under
Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Bheera,
District-Kheri
has
been
lodged
on
10.11.2022 for the alleged incident which
is more than four years old.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the delay of more than four
years has not been explained in the F.I.R.
He has drawn attention of this Court
towards Annexure No.CA-1 of the counter
affidavit which is a statement of the
informant recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. wherein the delay of more than
four years has not been explained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that in an offence under Section
406 I.P.C. maximum punishment is three
years but the impugned F.I.R. has been
lodged after the delay of four years and
such delay has not been explained. He has
further submitted that despite the aforesaid
fact the Investigating Agency has filed the
charge-sheet against the petitioner without
having any relevant material and the
corroborating evidences supporting the
case of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn attention of this Court towards the
dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Amrit
Lal vs. Shanti Lal Soni & Ors. reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248. In the aforesaid
judgement, the Apex Court has considered
the judgment of Apex Court delivered by a
Constitution Bench in re: Sarah Mathew
vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherin & Ors.
(2014) 2 SCC 62, wherein two questions
have been decided. The first question was
whether for the purposes of computing the
period of limitation under Section 468
Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of
filing of the complaint or the date of
institution of the prosecution or whether the
relevant date is the date on which a
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence?
And the second question was that which of
two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna
Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC
121] or Bharat Kale (Bharat Damodar
Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559]
(which is followed in Japani Sahoo
[Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down
the correct law?

The Constitution Bench answered the
aforesaid questions as follows:-

"51. In view of the above, we hold that
for the purpose of computing the period of
limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the
relevant date is the date of filing of the
complaint or the date of institution of
prosecution and not the date on which the
Magistrate takes cognizance. We further
hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar
Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559]
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani
Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007)
7 SCC 394] lays down the correct law.
Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A.
Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121: 1990 SCC
(Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its
own facts and it is not the authority for
deciding the question as to what is the
relevant date for the purpose of computing
the period of limitation under Section 468
Cr.P.C."
(emphasis supplied)

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that when the Constitution Bench
has held that for the purposes of computing
the period of limitation under Section 468
Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing
of the complaint or the date of institution of
the prosecution, not the date on which the
Magistrate takes cognizance, then the
relevant date in the present case would be
the date which is four years old and no
specific date has been indicated in the F.I.R.
The delay has not been explained.

10. On being asked from the learned
Additional
Government
Advocate,
Sri
Aniruddha Singh, as to what is the relevant
material/ evidence which might have
convinced the Investigating Agency that the
present petitioner has committed offence
under Section 406 I.P.C. or material/
evidence might have convinced the learned
trial court to take cognizance on the chargesheet which has been filed against the
petitioner, Sri Aniruddha Singh, has stated
that the statement of the complainant and
other persons were recorded by the
Investigating Agency and on the basis of
those statements the charge-sheet has been
filed.

11. On being further asked about the
delay of more than four years in lodging an
F.I.R., Sri Aniruddha Singh has stated that
though there is no limitation prescribed in
lodging the F.I.R. and if the offence is
having recurring cause of action, such
F.I.R. may be lodged but the allegations of
the complainant should be tested on the
material available on record. However, in
view
of
the
present
facts
and
circumstances, no material could be shown
to the Court that the delay of four years has
been explained properly.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the material
available on record, at the very outset, I
must observe that despite the notice having
been issued by this Court to the private
opposite party and despite the service upon
the private opposite party on or before
04.12.2023 but neither the private opposite
party appeared nor any counsel on his
behalf is appeared nor any request for
adjournment of the case has been prayed,
therefore, prima-facie, it appears that the
private opposite party is not interested to
contest the present case.

13. So far as the factum of inordinate
and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.
is concerned, the Apex Court in the case in
re: Manoj Kumar Sharma and others vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and others reported
in (2016) 9 SCC 1 has observed in para-18
as under:-

"18. Delay in lodging the FIR often
results in embellishment, which is a
creature of an afterthought. On account of
delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger also
creeps in of the introduction of a coloured
version or exaggerated story. In our
opinion, such extraordinary delay in
lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about
the truthfulness of allegations made by
1 All. Manjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
281
Respondent No. 2 herein against the
appellants, which are, in any case, general
in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations,
Respondent No. 2 herein has tried to rope
the appellants in criminal proceedings. We
are
of
the
confirmed
opinion
that
continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants pursuant to this FIR
is an abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR
deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is
apt to quote the following decision of this
Court in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein it
was held as under:-"

"12. The FIR in a criminal case is a
vital and valuable piece of evidence
though may not be substantive piece of
evidence. The object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the
commission of an offence is to obtain early
information regarding the circumstances
in which the crime was committed, the
names of the actual culprits and the part
played by them as well as the names of the
eye-witnesses present at the scene of
occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging
the FIR, it loses the advantage of
spontaneity, danger creeps in of the
introduction
of
coloured
version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as
a
result
of
large
number
of
consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly,
the promptness in lodging the FIR is an
assurance
regarding
truth
of
the
informant's version. A promptly lodged
FIR reflects the firsthand account of what
has actually happened, and who was
responsible for the offence in question."

(emphasis supplied)

14. Therefore, the law is trite that if
there is any delay in lodging the F.I.R., that
should be explained properly inasmuch as
an inordinate and unexplained delay may
be fatal to prosecute the accused person.
Besides, the offence for which the instant
F.I.R. was lodged is having maximum
punishment of three years but the present
F.I.R. has been lodged after more than
four years without having any proper
explanation to that effect.

15. In view of the decision of Apex
Court rendered in re: Amrit Lal(supra),
the relevant date would be the date four
years prior to the date of lodging of the
F.I.R.,
as
the
date
of
F.I.R.
is
10.11.2022.

16. When the delay has not been
explained properly and the prosecution
is having no proper material/ evidence to
convince that any offence under Section
406 I.P.C. has been made out, then to
file the charge-sheet by the Investigating
Agency and to take cognizance by the
trial court is nothing but to misuse and
abuse of process of law in view of the
dictum of Apex Court rendered in re:
State of Haryana and others vs. Shri
Bhajan Lal & others reported in 1992
Supl. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

17. Accordingly, the present petition
is allowed. The Charge-sheet No.01 dated
29.01.2023 pending in the Court of Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division)/
F.T.C.,
Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case
No.1450 of 2013 (State vs. Manjeet
Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.618
of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police
Station-Bheera, District-Kheri, is quashed/
set aside.

18. Consequences to follow.

19. No order as to costs.
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Before parting with, I appreciate the
efforts and research done by Mr. Piyush
Tripathi, Law Clerk Trainee attached with
me and Ms. Tanya Prasad and Ms. Adisri
Kapoor, Law Interns for finding out the
relevant case laws application in the
present case.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 282
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 12244 of 2023

Sunil Dutt Tripathi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ishan Baghel, Sagar Singh, Umang Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482- The applicant
challenged the order dated 02.11.2023 rejecting
the release of his licensed pistol, four live
cartridges, and arms license, seized in connection
with Case Crime No. 25 of 2023 under Sections
504, 506, 286, 323 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act -
Held, the order was legally unsustainable as the
applicant's act of firing in the air in self-defense did
not violate the conditions of the arms license, and
no license cancellation proceedings were initiated,
warranting the release of the seized items. (Paras
10, 11, 12)

Self-Defense and Arms Act Violation - The
applicant fired his licensed pistol in the air to
escape an attacking mob, as supported by a
witness St.ment - Held, firing a licensed firearm in
self-defense does not constitute a violation of
Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, as the
prosecution failed to specify which license
condition was breached, and no evidence
showed intent to cause harm. (Paras 9, 10,
11)

Evidentiary Considerations - The FIR alleged
firing with intent to kill under Section 307 IPC, but
the charge was dropped during investigation, and
the chargesheet was filed under Sections 504,
506, 286, 323 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act - Held,
no injuries were caused to others, and the
applicant and co-accused sustained injuries,
supporting
the
claim
of
self-defense,
as
corroborated by the witness St.ment of the coaccused's sister. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 11)

Judicial Discretion in Release of Seized
Property - The trial court rejected the release
application
solely
on
the
ground
that
a
chargesheet under Section 30 Arms Act was filed,
despite
no
pending
license
cancellation
proceedings - Held, the court's reasoning was
flawed, as the mere filing of a chargesheet does
not justify withholding licensed property when no
license violation was established, and the applicant
was already on bail. (Paras 5, 7, 11, 12)

No Pending Cancellation Proceedings - The
police
report
confirmed
no
arms
license
cancellation proceedings were pending before the
District Magistrate - Held, in the absence of such
proceedings and evidence of license misuse, the
continued retention of the pistol, cartridges, and
license was unjustified, entitling the applicant to
their immediate releas(Paras 5, 11, 12)

Application under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 Allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Subhash
Vidyarthi, J.)

1. प्रार्थीिं के विद्वान अधििक्ता श्री इशान
बघेल िर्था विद्वान अधिररक्त शासकीय अधििक्ता
श्री राकेश कुमार धसिंह को सुना ि पत्रािली का
पररशीलन ककया।

2. िारा 482 दिं०प्र०सिं० के अिंिर्गि
प्रस्िुि
इस
प्रार्थगना-पत्र
द्वारा
प्रार्थी
ने