# Monu Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2067
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4223 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/monu-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52044
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 294-Allegation-Police personnel got
information-three persons performing obscene
acts against the passing women of the areaApplicant got caught red-handed-FIR registeredmere performance of obscene act or indecent
act is not sufficient-there must be a further proof
establish that it was to the annoyance of others-
"annoyance to others" prerequisite to invoke the
provision-none of the females were examined to
establish the alleged act-gross misuse of penal
law-no criminal offence is made out-haste in
filing charge sheet-within a week -proceedings
quashed

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
2068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

5 All. Monu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2067
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.

39. Thus, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in light
of the observations and discussions made
above and keeping view the facts and
circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in
Compliant Case No.2886 of 2016; State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Azim Premji & Another,
and the summoning order dated 03.09.2016
and the order dated 08.02.2017 vide which
warrant has been issued against the
applicant are liable to be quashed as in the
present
case
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow has failed to apply his
judicial mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto while summoning
the applicant and issuing bailable warrant,
the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not
examined the nature of allegations made in
the complaint and the evidences both oral
and documentary in support thereof.

40. Accordingly, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
in Compliant Case No.2886 of 2016;
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Azim Premji
& Another, and the summoning order
dated 03.09.2016 and the order dated
08.02.2017 vide which bailable warrant
has been issued against the applicant are
hereby quashed.

41. For the reasons discussed
above, the instant application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is
allowed in respect of the instant applicant,
namely-Azim Premji.

42. Learned Senior Registrar of this
Court is directed to transmit a copy of this
order to the trial court concerned for its
necessary compliance.

43. No order as to cost(s).
---------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2067
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4223 of 2024

Monu Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Ritwika Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 294-Allegation-Police personnel got
information-three persons performing obscene
acts against the passing women of the areaApplicant got caught red-handed-FIR registeredmere performance of obscene act or indecent
act is not sufficient-there must be a further proof
establish that it was to the annoyance of others-
"annoyance to others" prerequisite to invoke the
provision-none of the females were examined to
establish the alleged act-gross misuse of penal
law-no criminal offence is made out-haste in
filing charge sheet-within a week -proceedings
quashed

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
2068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs St. of Uttaranchal
(2007)12 SCC 1

2. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383

3. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

4. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C.
866

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

6. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)
283

7. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah., AIR 2021 SC 1918.

S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168

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

1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu S.
Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant,
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I
for the State-opposite parties and perused
the entire material placed on record.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on
behalf
of
the
applicant,namely-Monu
Kumar seeking quashing of the impugned
summoning order dated 30.01.2024 passed
by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division
(F.T.C.)
Unnao
in
Criminal
Case
No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin and
Ors.),
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.283/2023 under Section 294 I.P.C.,
Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao
and
the
impugned
charge
sheet
no.204/2023 dated 24.12.2023 arising out
of Case Crime No.283/2023 under Section
294
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Achalganj,
District-Unnao and also the entire as well
as consequential proceedings of Criminal
Case No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin
and Ors.) arising out of arising out of Case
Crime No.283/2023 under Section 294
I.P.C., Police Station-Achalganj, DistrictUnnao pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division (F.T.C.) Unnao.

3. Learned Counsel for the
applicant submitted that the opposite party
No.2 and his associate police personnel
who
were
patrolling
within
their
jurisdiction for prevention of crime and got
information from the reliable informer in
Korari Bazaar that three persons are doing
obscene acts against the passing women of
the area, wherefore the opposite party No.2
caught the Applicant red-handed and
registered the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime
No. 283 of 2024, under sections 294 IPC, at
Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao
on
17.12.2023
alleging
therein
that
applicant was passing obscene comments
on the females, who were passing by from
Jumka Nala bridge.

4. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that on perusal
of
arrest-cum-recovery
memo,
dated
17.12.2023, which reveals that despite the
alleged incident having been taken place at
a bridge connecting a busy road which had
all access to the general members of public,
there are no independent witnesses of the
aforesaid
arrest-cum-recovery
memo.
Moreover,
the
aforesaid
arrest-cumrecovery proceedings have been conducted
by the police in gross violation of
provisions of section 100 and 165 Cr.P.C
rendering the entire proceeding illegal and
unworthy of any credit.

5. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that on perusal
5 All. Monu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2069
of the aforementioned FIR and arrest-cumrecovery memo which makes it clear that
there was complete haste in proceeding
against the applicant that within one and
half hour of arresting the applicant,
opposite party No.2 got the FIR registered
without preparation of any site plan or
making any effort to examine any of the
independent eye-witnesses or examining
any of passing by females against whom
allegedly the applicant was passing of
obscene comments.

6. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant
was
immediately
arrested
alongwith other co-accused who happened
to be his friends and consequently, he was
enlarged on bail on the very same day
which is evident from the perusal of entry
no.5 of CD Parcha no.1, dated 17.12.2023.
He further submitted that while being
released on bail assurances were extended
to the applicant from the police personnel
that no further action will be taken against
the applicant in connection with the alleged
offence
in
question.
Moreover,
the
applicant only became aware of the fact that
instant case is pending against him is when
summoning order was passed against him
by the learned trial court.

7. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
investigation of the instant case has been
conducted in a tainted, botched- up and
hasty manner by the police merely in order
to show up the good work and has
proceeded to make out a false, fabricated
and concocted case and has falsely
implicated the applicant in the present case
whereas the police has completely ignored
the mandatory provisions of criminal law.
The haste in finalizing the investigation in
the instant case is evident from the fact that
within a week after registration of the FIR,
the impugned charge-sheet was filed
wherein only the statement of members of
police party on one day and on another day
site plan was prepared and statement of the
informant was recorded. He further
submitted that neither any independent
witness was examined nor any females
were examined, who were being annoyed
by the alleged obscene comments of the
applicant.

8. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
statement of all members of police party
and witness of arrest-cum- recovery memo,
namely Head Constable Avjesh Singh,
Constable Sunil Kumar, Lady Constable
Gulistan and Lady Constable Pushpa
Chauhan was recorded on 20.12.2023
under section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein they
have verbatim reiterated the contents of the
arrest-cum-recovery memo which creates
substantial doubt on the veracity of their
statement as well as the prosecution story
which in itself is devoid of any credence.

9. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
statement of the Informant, i.e., opposite
party No.2 was recorded on 24.12.2023
under section 161 Cr.P.C wherein, he has
verbatim reiterated the contents of the
arrest-cum-recovery memo which creates
substantial doubt on the veracity of his
statement as well as the prosecution story
which in itself is devoid of any credence.

10. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
investigation has been conducted in a
tainted manner, which is also evident from
the fact that site plan of place of occurrence
which is usually prepared at the earliest was
the last thing done by the investigating
2070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
officer on 24.12.2023 between 11:00 am to
14:00 pm and on the same he went on to file
the charge-sheet.

11. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant is a bright undergraduate student
studying at Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya, Unnao
affiliated to Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur and presently pursuing
Bachelor of Arts course (Humanities and
Social and in support of the same, college
Identity Card, fee deposition receipt, 5th
semester result, hall ticket of 5th Semester
alongwith fifth semester
examination
schedule are being placed on record. He
further submitted that the applicant is a
bright student whose entire life and career
is at stake, which will be ruined due to his
false implication in the instant case.
Moreover, at the time of registration of the
FIR the applicant was merely 20 and half
years of age and had no occasion to commit
the alleged offence in question.

12. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant is a resident of Korari Kalan and
after taking his exam on 16.12.2023 had
went to the house of his paternal-aunt (Bua)
who resides at nearby village in Korari
Khurd and while returning from there he
was intercepted by the police personnel
because
he
was
doing
tripling
on
motorcycle and thereafter, the applicant
was arrested and falsely implicated in the
instant case.

13. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that the present
case is a classic example wherein false
allegations have been leveled by the
opposite party No.2 with an ulterior motive
to show up the police good work in his
jurisdiction without caring for the disrepute
it brings to the applicant and his family as
well as harassment to the applicant is being
put to because of all such serious
allegations. Moreover, such cases not only
bring disrepute but also cause harassment
of an innocent person.

14. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that even if all
the
allegations
levelled
against
the
applicant are prima facie viewed, the
offence alleged to have been committed by
the applicant is not made out since mere use
of abusive, humiliating or defamative
words by itself cannot attract an offense
under section 294 of IPC. In order to bring
home the charge under section 294 of IPC
mere utterance of obscene words are not
sufficient but there must be a further proof
to establish that it was to the annoyance of
others, which is completely lacking in the
instant case.

15. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant has neither directly nor indirectly
induced or threatened or promised any
person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade them from disclosing the
facts before the court or any police officer.

16. Per contra, learned A.G.A-I for
the State-opposite party has vehemently
opposed the contentions made by learned
Counsel for the applicant and submits that
there was ample evidence against the
applicant, who was present at the railway
crossing at the time of incident and the
police party in a very cautious manner
nabbed him red handed, while he was
creating nuisance in a public place and was
passing obscene comments on the girls and
ladies.
Thereafter,
the
police
has
thoroughly conducted the inquiry against
the applicant and has filed a charge sheet
5 All. Monu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2071
against him considering the material on
record, thus, he submits that the trial court
has correctly took the cognizance of the
charge sheet and has rightly summoned the
applicant to face trial in the aforesaid case.
He further submits that no interference by
this Court is required in the matter and the
present application being devoid of merit
and substance is liable to be rejected.

17. I have heard learned Counsel
for the parties.

18. On careful perusal of
averments made in this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as after hearing
the learned Counsel for the parties, the
factual matrix discloses that the opposite
party No.2 and his associate police
personnel, who were patrolling within their
jurisdiction for prevention of crime and got
information from the reliable informer in
Korari Bazaar that three persons were
doing obscene acts against the passing
women of the area, wherefore the opposite
party No.2 caught the applicant red-handed
and registered the F.I.R. bearing Case
Crime No. 283 of 2024, under sections 294
IPC, at Police Station Achalganj, District
Unnao on 17.12.2023 alleging therein that
applicant was passing obscene comments
on the females, who were passing by from
Jumka Nala bridge, and on perusal of
arrest-cum-recovery
memo,
dated
17.12.2023, which reveals that despite the
alleged incident having been taken place at
a bridge connecting a busy road which had
all access to the general members of public,
there is no independent witness of the
aforesaid
arrest-cum-recovery
memo.
Moreover,
the
aforesaid
arrest-cumrecovery proceedings have been conducted
by the police in gross violation of
provisions of section 100 and 165 Cr.P.C.
Further, opposite party No.2 got the FIR
registered without preparation of any site
plan or making any effort to examine any of
the
independent
eye-witnesses
or
examining any of passing by females
against whom allegedly the applicant was
passing of obscene comments and while
being released on bail assurances were
extended to the applicant from the police
personnel that no further action will be
taken against the applicant in connection
with the alleged offence in question.
Moreover, the applicant only became aware
of the fact that instant case is pending
against him is when summoning order was
passed against him by the learned trial
court.

19. Further, on perusal of records,
it appears that the investigation of the
instant case has been conducted in a tainted,
botched- up and hasty manner by the police
merely in order to show up the good work
and has proceeded to make out a false,
fabricated and concocted case and has
falsely implicated the applicant in the
present case wherein, the police has
completely
ignored
the
mandatory
provisions of criminal law. The haste in
finalizing the investigation in the instant
case is evident from the fact that within a
week after registration of the FIR, the
impugned charge-sheet was filed wherein
only the statement of members of police
party on one day and on another day site
plan was prepared and statement of the
informant was recorded and neither any
independent witness was examined nor any
females were examined, who were being
annoyed by the alleged obscene comments
of the applicant.

20. It is further observed here that
the applicant is a bright undergraduate
student
studying
at
Rajkiya
Mahavidyalaya,
Unnao
affiliated
to
2072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University,
Kanpur and presently pursuing Bachelor of
Arts course (Humanities), whose entire life
and career is at stake, which will be ruined
due to his false implication in the instant
case. Moreover, at the time of registration
of the FIR the applicant was merely 20 and
half years of age and had no occasion to
commit the alleged offence in question.

21. Further, the trial court has
failed to appreciate the fact that while filing
the charge sheet, the Investigating officer
has failed to comply with the mandatory
provisions of criminal law and has passed
the
impugned
summoning
order
30.01.2024, which is nothing but an abuse
of process of law.

22. Further the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case Inder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007)12
SCC 1 has held that it would be relevant to
keep into mind the scope and ambit of
section 482 Cr.PC and circumstances under
which the extra ordinary power of the court
inherent therein as provisioned in the said
section of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised, para
23 is being quoted here under:-

"23. This court in a number of
cases has laid down the scope and ambit of
courts powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Every High Court has inherent power to act
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Inherent power under
section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under
the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process
of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice."
23. Further Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Lalankumar
Singh
and
Others
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 1383 has specifically held in paragraph
No.38 that the order of issuance of process
is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is
required to apply his mind as to whether
sufficient ground for proceeding exists in
the case or not. Paragraph No.38 of
Lalankumar Singh and Others (supra) is
being quoted hereunder:-

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this Court
in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.
5 All. Monu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2073

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.
The order is liable to be set aside if no
reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused, though the order need
not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the
order would be bad in law if the reason
given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

24. Further, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India has provided guidelines in
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for the
exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. which is extraordinary power and
used separately in following conditions:-

 "102.(1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused."

(2) where the allegations in the
First
Information
Report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused;

(4) where the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party;

(7) 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."

25. Further the Hon'ble Supreme
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
2074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Bihar Vs.
P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iii)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (iv)
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

26. 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 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.

27. It is further observed there that
the object and scope of the section 294 of
IPC is intended to prevent an obscene or
indecent act being performed in public to
the annoyance of public at large. Section
294 I.P.C. is reproduced hereinunder:-

 "Section 294 :Obscene acts and
songs

Essential ingredients :

1. Doing of any obscene act in a
public place, or

2. Anyone sings,recite or utters any
obscene song,ballad or words in or near any
public place
3. By such act annoyance is caused
to a particular person or persons in general."

28. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is
clear that mere performance of obscene or
indecent act is not sufficient, but there must
be a further proof establish that it was to the
annoyance of others, thereby annoyance to
others is essential to constitute an offence
under this section. Moreso, when the said
section says "annoyance to others" is a
prerequisite to invoke the provision, then
the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se"
will not arise until or unless there is
evidence on record to see that a person at a
given time witnessing particular obscene
act was actually annoyed or not. He further
submitted that none of the female have been
examined to establish that the alleged act of
passing obscene comment upon the passing
females have caused them annoyance and
in absence of such evidence the impugned
charge-sheet and summoning order are
devoid of any merit and gross abuse of
process of law.

29. Further, the instant case is a
gross misuse of penal laws in particular and
criminal law in general since no criminal
offence is made out from the perusal of
aforesaid
facts
and
the
impugned
summoning order has been passed in an
arbitrary
manner
without
giving
consideration to the material on record and
lack of due application of judicial mind.

30. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
light of the observations and discussions
made above and keeping view the facts and
circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned
summoning order dated 30.01.2024 passed
by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division
(F.T.C.)
Unnao
in
Criminal
Case
No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin and
Ors.),
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.283/2023 under Section 294 I.P.C.,
Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao
and the impugned charge sheet
5 All. Kaushar Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2075
no.204/2023 dated 24.12.2023 arising out
of Case Crime No.283/2023 under Section
294
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Achalganj,
District-Unnao and also the entire as well
as consequential proceedings of Criminal
Case No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin
and Ors.) arising out of arising out of Case
Crime No.283/2023 under Section 294
I.P.C., Police Station-Achalganj, DistrictUnnao pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division (F.T.C.) Unnao and
are liable to be quashed as the investigation
of the instant case has been conducted in a
tainted, botched- up and hasty manner by
the police merely in order to show up the
good work and has proceeded to make out
a false, fabricated and concocted case and
has falsely implicated the applicant in the
present case wherein, the police has
completely
ignored
the
mandatory
provisions of criminal law. The haste in
finalizing the investigation in the instant
case is evident from the fact that within a
week after registration of the FIR, the
impugned charge-sheet was filed wherein
only the statement of members of police
party on one day and on another day site
plan was prepared and statement of the
informant was recorded and neither any
independent witness was examined nor any
females were examined, who were being
annoyed by the alleged obscene comments
of the applicant.

31. Accordingly, the impugned
summoning order dated 30.01.2024 passed
by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division
(F.T.C.)
Unnao
in
Criminal
Case
No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin and
Ors.),
arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.283/2023 under Section 294 I.P.C.,
Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao
and
the
impugned
charge
sheet
no.204/2023 dated 24.12.2023 arising out
of Case Crime No.283/2023 under Section
294
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Achalganj,
District-Unnao and also the entire as well
as consequential proceedings of Criminal
Case No.141/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sachin
and Ors.) arising out of arising out of Case
Crime No.283/2023 under Section 294
I.P.C., Police Station-Achalganj, DistrictUnnao pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division (F.T.C.) Unnao are
hereby quashed.

32. For the reasons discussed
above, the instant application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is
allowed in respect of the instant applicant,
namely-Monu Kumar.

33. Office is directed to transmit a
copy of this order to the trial court
concerned for its necessary compliance.

34. No order as to cost(s).
---------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2075
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5228 of 2023

Kaushar Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Gibran Akhtar Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 3(1) (S)-Complaint
filed-learned
Magistrate without considering the material