# Nikki Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-26
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 20438 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nikki-devi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52256
- **Pages:** 90

## Headnote

Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
482-Indian
Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 376-D & 506 & -
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Actapplicant seeks expedited trial in Session
Trial no. 560 of 2021 involving charges of
gang rape, criminal intimidation, and
violations of the SC/ST Act-non-practicing
advocates, in collaboration with women
from
SC/ST
community,
involved
in
fabricating false cases for personal and
financial
gain,
particularly
targeting
innocent individual (including practicing
advocates)-The
court
stayed
the
proceedings
of
trial
and
ordered
a
thorough investigation in this matter-CBI
inquiry revealed discrepancies in the
victims statements, raising doubts about
he validity of the allegations against the
accused-The CBI identified a pattern of
false allegations in 46 similar cases,
including the present one, which led to
concerns about the abuse of judicial
process for financial gain-the preliminary
enquiry reports clears the entire position
that innocent persons have been trapped
in fake and bogus cases at the behest of
Advocates.(Para 1 to 45)

B.
CBI
Inquiry
Ordered:-In
light
of
seriousness of the allegations and the
complexity of the matter, the Court
exercised its inherent powers to direct a
CBI investigation. The CBI was tasked
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1347
with conducting a preliminary inquiry into
46 similar cases in which non-practicing
advocates were allegedly involved in
fabricating charges. The investigation was
necessary to ensure impartiality and
restore faith in the judicial process. The
CBI's
inquiry
revealed
significant
discrepancies, particularly in Call Detail
Records and the Statements provided by
the victim, which cast doubt on the
authenticity of the rape allegations . I was
found that during the alleged crime, the
victim's location was inconsistent with her
account,
and
no
concrete
evidence
supported the claims made against the
accused.(Para 23 to 34)

C. Allegations of False cases and Misuse of
SC/ST Act- The core allegation in this case
revolved around a conspiracy by nonpracticing advocates, in collaboration with
women from SC/ST community, to file
false cases under various sections of the
IPC and SC/ST Act. The court observed
that while the SC/ST Act is an essential
legislative
measure
for
protecting
marginalized communities, its misuse for
personal gain undermines its purpose.(1
to 35)

D. Inherent Powers of the High Court
(Section 482 CrPC)-The court emphasized
that the inherent powers granted u/s 482
CrPC must be used with caution and
discretion. These powers are meant to
prevent the abuse of judicial process,
ensure that justice is delivered, and
intervene when the legal process, is
manipulated
for
wrongful
purposes.
While these powers are broad, their
application should not stifle legitimate
prosecutions or shield offenders from
accountability. The court referred to the
precedent set in State of West Bengal
Vs.
Committee
for
Protection
of
Democratic Rights, wherein the Apex
Court highlighted that judicial discretion
should be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a risk of a miscarriage of
justice. (Para 1 to 35)

The petition is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,829 of 205,669. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39829 for what follows._

1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Director of Education
(Secondary) is unsustainable in law.

32. The claim of the petitioner in
Writ A No. 6890 of 2024 is consequential
to the order to be passed by this Court in
Writ A No. 18846 of 2018 and the learned
Counsel for the petitioner in Writ A No.
6890 of 2024 has advanced submissions in
opposition of Writ A No. 18846 of 2018
only.

33. Accordingly Writ A No. 18846
is allowed and the impugned order dated
07.08.2018, passed by the Director of
Education (Secondary) is quashed and Writ
A No. 6890 of 2024 is dismissed.

34. The matter is remanded to the
Director of Education (Secondary) to pass a
fresh order regarding the claim of seniority
of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5
to 7, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to the affected persons and keeping
in view the observations made by this
Court in the earlier judgment and order
dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Court in
passed in Writ-A Nos. 72525 of 2005 and
33324 of 2009 as well as the observations
made in this judgment.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY , J.

Application U/S 482 No. 20438 of 2022

Nikki Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Amar Bahadur
Maurya, Amber Khanna, Anubhav Dwivedi,
Anurag Mishra, Deepak Singh Patel, Dev
Kant Trigunait, Dinesh Kumar Pandey,
Durgesh Chandra Tiwari, Kavindra Dwivedi,
Mukesh Kumar, Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Raj
Kumar Khanna, Rajendra Prasad Dubey,
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ramesh Kumar
Ojha, Sanjai Singh, Satya Dheer Singh
Jadaun, Saurabh Basu, Shailesh Kumar,
Upendra Upadhyay, Vinod Rajmurti Yadav,
Vishwambhar Nath

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anurag Kamal, G.A., Hari Om Rai

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
482-Indian
Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 376-D & 506 & -
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Actapplicant seeks expedited trial in Session
Trial no. 560 of 2021 involving charges of
gang rape, criminal intimidation, and
violations of the SC/ST Act-non-practicing
advocates, in collaboration with women
from
SC/ST
community,
involved
in
fabricating false cases for personal and
financial
gain,
particularly
targeting
innocent individual (including practicing
advocates)-The
court
stayed
the
proceedings
of
trial
and
ordered
a
thorough investigation in this matter-CBI
inquiry revealed discrepancies in the
victims statements, raising doubts about
he validity of the allegations against the
accused-The CBI identified a pattern of
false allegations in 46 similar cases,
including the present one, which led to
concerns about the abuse of judicial
process for financial gain-the preliminary
enquiry reports clears the entire position
that innocent persons have been trapped
in fake and bogus cases at the behest of
Advocates.(Para 1 to 45)

B.
CBI
Inquiry
Ordered:-In
light
of
seriousness of the allegations and the
complexity of the matter, the Court
exercised its inherent powers to direct a
CBI investigation. The CBI was tasked
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1347
with conducting a preliminary inquiry into
46 similar cases in which non-practicing
advocates were allegedly involved in
fabricating charges. The investigation was
necessary to ensure impartiality and
restore faith in the judicial process. The
CBI's
inquiry
revealed
significant
discrepancies, particularly in Call Detail
Records and the Statements provided by
the victim, which cast doubt on the
authenticity of the rape allegations . I was
found that during the alleged crime, the
victim's location was inconsistent with her
account,
and
no
concrete
evidence
supported the claims made against the
accused.(Para 23 to 34)

C. Allegations of False cases and Misuse of
SC/ST Act- The core allegation in this case
revolved around a conspiracy by nonpracticing advocates, in collaboration with
women from SC/ST community, to file
false cases under various sections of the
IPC and SC/ST Act. The court observed
that while the SC/ST Act is an essential
legislative
measure
for
protecting
marginalized communities, its misuse for
personal gain undermines its purpose.(1
to 35)

D. Inherent Powers of the High Court
(Section 482 CrPC)-The court emphasized
that the inherent powers granted u/s 482
CrPC must be used with caution and
discretion. These powers are meant to
prevent the abuse of judicial process,
ensure that justice is delivered, and
intervene when the legal process, is
manipulated
for
wrongful
purposes.
While these powers are broad, their
application should not stifle legitimate
prosecutions or shield offenders from
accountability. The court referred to the
precedent set in State of West Bengal
Vs.
Committee
for
Protection
of
Democratic Rights, wherein the Apex
Court highlighted that judicial discretion
should be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a risk of a miscarriage of
justice. (Para 1 to 35)

The petition is disposed of. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash
learned Additional Solicitgor General of
India, assisted by Sri Sri Sanjay Yadav,
learned counsel for the C.B.I. learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Bhupendra
Pandey, opposite party no.2-Advocate in
person
2. By means of the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicantinformant namely, Nikki Devi has sought
direction upon the learned Special Court
SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, District Prayagraj, to
consider and decide the trial of Sessions
Trial No. 560 of 2021 (State Vs. Bhupendra
Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 150
of 2021 under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station Daraganj, District Prayagraj, as
expeditiously as possible.
3. The instant case has remained pending
since 2022. When the matter came up for
consideration
on
21.07.2022,
it
was
intimated to the Court by Sri Bhupendra
Pandey, the opposite party no.2 that several
gangs of non-practising Advocates, are
being operated involving women, to trap
the
innocent
persons
in
fake
cases
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
implicating them amongst others Sections
of IPC, under SC/ST Act and after
submission of charge sheet, they distribute
the money received from the Government,
amongst themselves.
4. Apart from the aforesaid submissions
made by Sri Bhupendra Pandey, it was also
intimated to the Court that certain persons,
though they are Advocates on paper, but are
non-practising Advocate have formed a
gang and are closely associated with the
ladies of SC/ST community. The modus
operandi of the gang is -the ladies enter
into agreement to sell after taking earnest
money from the vendee. When the vendee
asks them to execute the sale deed, they
refuse and on insistence by the vendee, the
alleged vendor use to implicate those
vendees in false and frivolous case under
penal provision of IPC along with SC/ST
Act. When the vendee seeks protection in
accordance with law before appropriate
Court, these vendor take shelter of those of
Advocates Gang, who used to initiate
criminal proceedings at the behest of those
vendor not only against the vendee but also
against the Advocates of vendee who
contests the case on their behalf. It was
also brought to the notice of the Court that
practising Advocates have also become
victims of false accusation by the nonpractising Advocates. Those non practising
advocates are involved in some other
profession such a real estate, construction
etc. under the garb/ shelter of their
advocacy.
5. It is well acknowledged that the powers
under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be
exercised by the Court to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Though the
powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the
very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. The inherent power
cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. Such powers have to be
exercised only to give effect to any order
under Cr.P.C, to prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to secure the ends
of justice. Therefore, considering the
seriousness of the allegations made and the
gravity of offence, this Court vide order
dated 21.07.2022 had stayed the further
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 560 of
2021 (State Vs. Bhupendra Pandey) arising
out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2021 under
Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3
(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station
Daraganj, District Prayagraj after inviting
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1349
counter and rejoinder affidavits fixing the
matter for 18.08.2022.
6. In line no.1 of paragraph no.9 the word
"applicant" was inadvertently transcribed
in place of "accused", thus the correction
application filed for the said correction was
allowed vide order dated 01.08.2022.
7. When the matter was taken up on
18.08.2022, counter affidavit was filed by
the accused-opposite party no.2 bringing on
record a list of as many as 50 cases
registered against the innocent persons
including the Advocates. Including the
instant case i.e. Sessions Trial No. 560 of
2021 (State Vs. Bhupendra Pandey) arising
out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2021 under
Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3
(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Daraganj,
District Prayagraj, in this way total 51
cases have been registered at District
Prayagraj, out of which 36 cases have been
registered at Police Station Mau Aima and
the remaining cases have been registered at
different Police Stations. The list of
criminal cases is annexed as AnnexureCA17 to the affidavit. This Court relying
upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the matter of State of West Begal and
others Vs. The Committee for Protection
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 571 and
also taking into account the interest of
justice and to protect the interest of
Advocates, who are being victimised on
false accusation directed the C.B.I. to
conduct preliminary enquiry with regard to
46 cases only as well as Sessions Trial No.
560 of 2021 (State Vs. Bhupendra Pandey)
arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2021
under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station
Daraganj, District Prayagraj. The detail of
which are given below:-
1. Case Crime No. 181 of 2002 under
Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
2. Case Crime No.406 of 2002 under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
3. Case Crime No. 128 of 2005 under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 394, 307
I.P.C. Police Station Mau-aima, District
Allahabad.
4. Case Crime No. 233 of 2007 under
Sections 198Ka, 323, 504, 506, 452,
307, 394, 147, 148 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
5. Case Crime No. 112 of 2010 under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 324 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6.Case Crime No.416 of 2011 under
Sections 147, 392, 452, 323, 504, 506,
427 I.P.C. Police Station Mau-aima,
District Allahabad.
7. Case Crime No. 302 of 2007 under
Sections 367, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
8. Case Crime No. 87 of 2012 under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
9. Case Crime No. 30 of 2013 under
Sections 507, 115, 120-B I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
10. Case Crime No. 299 of 2016 under
Section 174, 504, 507 I.P.C. Police
Station Shiv Kuti District Allahabad.
11. Case Crime No. 154 of 2016 under
Sections 147, 323, 447, 452, 504, 505,
427 I.P.C. Police Station Baharia,
District Allahabad.
12. Case Crime No. 47 of 2016 under
Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. Police
Station Kydganj, District Allahabad.
13. Case Crime No.361 of 2016 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C.
and Section 3 (2) V SC./ST Act Police
Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad.
14. Case Crime No. 38 of 2017 under
Section 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Colonelganj, District Allahabad.
15. Case Crime No. 277 of 2017 under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad.
16. Case Crime No. 92 of 2017 under
Sections 147, 379, 447, 323, 504, 506,
427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) V SC/ST
Act, Police Station Baharia, District
Allahabad.
17. Case Crime No. 82 of 2008 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120-B
I.P.C. Police Station Baharia, District
Allahabad.
18. Case Crime No. 557 of 2017 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394
I.P.C. Police Station Cantt. District
Allahabad.
19. Case Crime No. 218 of 2012 Police
Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad.
20. Case Crime No. 680 of 2021 under
Sections 376 (D), 452, 506, I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, and Section
3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
21. Case Crime No. 370 of 2019 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 352, 506 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
22. Case Crime No. 097 of 2022 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427
I.P.C. Police Station Mau-aima, District
Allahabad.
23. Case Crime No. 142 of 2012, S.T.
No. 389 of 2014 under Sections 323,
324, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
24. Case Crime No. 106 of 2002 under
Sections 323, 504, 508, 452 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
25. Case Crime No. 125 of 2005 Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1351
26. Case Crime No. 179 of 2016 under
Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
27. Case Crime No. 270 of 2019 under
Sections 323, 394, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
28. Case Crime No. 29 of 2016 under
Sections 147, 506, 507 I.P.C. Police
Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad.
29. Case Crime No. 381 of 2017 under
Section 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Colonelganj, District Allahabad.
30. Case Crime No. 391 of 2017 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,379 I.P.C.
and Section 3 (2) V Ka SC/ST Act,
Police
Station
Shivkuti,
District
Allahabad.
31. Case Crime No. 30 of 2013 under
Sections 504, 115, 120-B I.P.C. Police
Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad.
32. Case Crime No. 181 of 2002 under
Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
33. Case Crime No. 406 of 2002 under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
34. Case Crime No. 233 of 2007 under
Sections 198Ka, 323, 504, 506, 452,
307, 394, 147, 148 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
35. Case Crime No. 112 of 2010 under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 324 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima
District
Allahabad.
36. Case Crime No. 416 of 2011 under
Sections 147, 392, 452, 323, 504, 506,
427, I.P.C. Police Station Mau-aima,
District Allahabad.
37. Case Crime No. 302 of 2007 under
Sections 379, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
38. Case Crime No. 142 of 2012 under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
39. Case Crime No. 090 of 2021 under
Sections 342, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
40. Case Crime No. 317 of 2018 under
Sections 392, 354Kha I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
41. Case Crime No. 72 of 2018 under
Sections 436, 452, 147Kha, 148 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
42. Case Crime No. 218 of 2018 under
Sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Police Station
Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
43. Case Crime No. 240 of 2017 under
Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section
3/2/5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Mauaima, District Allahabad.
44. Case Crime No. 617 of 2018 under
Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau-aima,
District
Allahabad.
45. Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under
Sections 376D, 328, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Phaphamau, District Allahabad.
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
46. Case Crime No. 420 of 2021 under
Sections 307, 342, 506 8I.P.C. Police
Station Mau-aima, District Allahabad.
8. The informant-applicant Nikki Devi
challenged the order dated 21.07.2022 and
18.08.2022 before Hon'ble Apex Court by
way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No(s) 8313-8314 of 2022 and the Hon'ble
Apex Court had been pleased to dismiss the
said special leave petition, vide order dated
12.09.2022.
9. After filing of counter affidavit by Sri
Bhupendra Pandey, Advocate-the accusedopposite party no.2, who had specifically
stated in his counter affidavit that as many
50 cases have been registered against the
innocent persons at the behest of the nonpractising Advocates and considering the
gravity of cases, this Court had ordered for
preliminary enquiry into the matter with
respect to 46 cases vide order dated
18.08.2022
fixing
the
matter
for
20.10.2022.
10. On 20.10.2022, Sri Vinod Shanker
Tripathi,
Advocate,
had
filed
a
modification/clarification application no.03
of
2022
along
with
impleadment
application supported by an affidavit. He
had filed a detailed affidavit, wherein it has
been stated that malicious allegations have
been imputed upon him by the opposite
party no.2 to the extent of implicating him
in a false and frivolous complaint through
Smt. Nikki Devi and further levelling
allegation against him that he is an active
member of alleged gang of Advocates, who
use to trap people in false/fake cases, in
order to extract money. It has also been
stated in the affidavit that the opposite
party no.2 in the present case, has not come
up with clean hands and intent before this
Court since the opposite party no.2 himself
encroached upon the land of innocent
owners and is habitual of lodging false and
frivolous F.I.Rs. He has also stated that the
opposite party no.2 also got a false F.I.R.
lodged through his sister against innocent
persons for unlawful consideration in Case
Crime No. 549 of 2015 under Sections 354,
504 I.P.C. Police Station Colonelganj,
District Allahabad, in which compromise
was entered into, after taking monetary
compensation. Apart from the aforesaid
averments several other averments have
been made in the affidavit accompanying
the modification application and had
prayed that the order dated 18.08.2022 may
be modified to the extent that apart from
preliminary
enquiry
directed
to
be
conducted by the C.B.I. with regard to the
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1353
cases shown at serial no. 1 to 46, the C.B.I.
may
also
be
directed
to
conduct
preliminary enquiry with regard to the
cases detailed in Annexure-23 of the
affidavit accompanying the application.
11. Taking into consideration the averments
made by Sri Vinod Shanker Tripathi in the
impleadment application as well as in the
modification application, this Court vide
order dated 20.10.2022 had allowed the
impleadment application for impleading Sri
Vinod Shanker Tripathi as opposite party
no.3. Apart from allowing the aforesaid
impleadment application, this Court had
also allowed the modification application
filed by Sri Vinod Shanker Tripathi and this
Court had directed the C.B.I. to conduct the
preliminary enquiry with respect to 23
cases out of 26 cases sought to be
preliminary enquired by the C.B.I. The
details of 23 cases are as under:-
(1) Case Crime No. 0562 of 2012 under
Sections 457, 380, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C. Police Station Colonelganj,
District Prayagraj.
(2) Case Crime No. 105 of 2021 under
Sections 376 (D), 506 I.P.C. Section
3(2) SC/ST Act, Police Daraganj,
District Prayagraj.
(3) Case Crime No. 82 of 2010 under
Sections 308, 406 I.P.C. Police Station
Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.
(4) Case Crime No. 144 of 2022 under
Sections 376 (D), 328 I.P.C. Police
Station Phaphamau, District Prayagraj.
(5) Case Crime No. 798 of 2021 under
Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.
(6) Case Crime No. 312 of 2022 under
Sections 323, 506, 406 I.P.C. Police
Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.
(7) Case Crime No. 549 of 2015 under
Sections 354, 504 I.P.C. Police Station
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.
(8) Case Crime No. 243 of 2018 under
Sections 419, 420, 147, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) and 3 (2)
(VI) SC/ST Act, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Prayagraj.
(9) Case Crime No. 558 of 2021 under
Sections 147, 447, 323, 504 I.P.C. and
Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police
Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.
(10) Case Crime No. 379 of 2022 under
Sections 147, 452, 427, 392, 504, 506
I.P.C. Police Station Civil Lines,
District Prayagraj.
(11) Case Crime No. 289 of 2022 under
Sections 386, 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.
(12) Case Crime No. 114 of 2022 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
307 I.P.C. Police Station Phaphamau,
District Prayagraj.
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(13) Case Crime No. 424 of 2022 under
Section 420 I.P.C. Police Station Civil
Lines, District Prayagraj.
(14) Case Crime No. 447 of 2022 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
395,
34
I.P.C.
Police
Station
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.
(15) Case Crime No. 361 of 2021 under
Sections 279, 304A I.P.C. Police
Station Cantt. District Prayagraj.
(16) Case Crime No. 239 of 2012 under
Sections 376D, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Police Station Mau Aima, District
Prayagraj.
(17) Case Crime No. 181 of 2018 under
Sections 323, 354B I.P.C. Police
Station Mau Aima, District Prayagraj.
(18) Case Crime No. 105 of 2022 under
Sections 376-D, 328, 506 I.P.C. 5/6 of
POCSO Act, Police Station Mau-Aima,
District Prayagraj.
(19) Complaint Case No. 908 of 2022
under
Section
138
Negotiable
Instruments Act, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Prayagraj.
(20) Complaint Case No. 885 of 2022
under
Section
138
Negotiable
Instruments Act, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Prayagraj.
(21) Complaint Case No. 125 of 2022
under Section 354, 452 I.P.C. and
Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police
Station Cantt., District Prayagraj.
(22) Complaint Case No. 06 of 2020
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376-D
I.P.C., Police Station Mau Aima,
District Prayagraj.
(23) Complaint Case No. 17145 of
2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468
I.P.C.
Police
Station
Mau Aima,
District Prayagraj.
12. Number of intervener applications,
modification
application
along
with
impleadment applications etc. were filed
before this Court, wherein it has been
alleged that the Advocates are being falsely
implicated in false and frivolous cases,
being the intervener application dated
20.10.2022, impleadment application no.15
of 2022, intervener application no. 24 of
2023, intervention application no.9 of
2022, application no. 13 of 2022 and
Criminal Misc. Application No. 03 of 2024
filed in the connected Criminal Appeal No.
8520 of 2022.
13. On the intervener application dated
20.10.2022, this Court vide order dated
20.10.2022 has directed the C.B.I. to
conduct the preliminary enquiry in Case
Crime No. 599 of 2016 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 376, 354, 395, 397, 452, 427,
504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sarai Inayat,
District Prayagraj.
14. On the Impleadment application no. 15
of 2022, the preliminary enquiry was
directed to be conducted by C.B.I. vide
order dated 13.02.2024 with respect to
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1355
Case Crime No. 0224 of 2021 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354B
I.P.C. Police Station Sarai Inayat, District
Prayagraj as well as Case Crime No. 255 of
2022 under Sections 307, 504, 506, I.P.C.
Police
Station
Sarai
Inayat,
District
Prayagraj.
15. Similarly on intervener application no.
24 of 2023, this Court had also directed to
conduct preliminary enquiry by the C.B.I.
in Case Crime No. 90 of 2022 under
Sections 494, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station
Industrial Area, District Prayagraj, vide
order dated 13.02.2023.
16. This Court while allowing the
intervention application no. 09 of 2022, had
directed the C.B.I. to conduct preliminary
enquiry by the CBI with respect to Case
Crime No. 91 of 2020 under Sections
354Kh, 147, 148, 323, 308, 427, 452, 504,
506 I.P.C. Police Station Hanumanganj,
District Kushinagar, Criminal Complaint
Case No. 429 of 2019 (old no. 180 of 2019)
Police Station Kotwali Hata, District Kushi
Nagar, Criminal Complaint Case No. 13615
of 2020 (Old Case No. 801 of 2020 ) under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police
Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar.
17. On the application no.13 of 2022,
direction was issued by this Court vide
order dated 13.02.2023 that a preliminary
enquiry be conducted by the CBI with
respect to Case Crime No. 195 of 2020
under Sections 376D, 406, 342, 506 I.P.C.
Police Station Kareilly, District Prayagraj,
Case Crime No. 141 of 2020 under
Sections 468, 467, 420, 419, 406 I.P.C.
Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj.
18. Another application being Criminal
Misc. Application No. 03 of 2024 filed in
connected Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2024
was also allowed by this Court vide order
dated 30.01.2024 in which, this Court had
directed the C.B.I. to conduct preliminary
enquiry in Case Crime No. 335 of 2021
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354Kha
I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) Va of SC/.ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Prayagraj/Allahabad.
19. It goes without saying that the
applications which were allowed by this
Court for conducting preliminary enquiry by
the C.B.I. in respect to the cases as detailed in
paragraph nos. 13 to 18, the accused persons
are of pracitising Advocates.
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. Apart from allowing the aforesaid
applications, numbers of applications were
rejected by this Court vide order dated
31.10.2023.
21. Thus this Court, on different dates directed
the C.B.I. to conduct preliminary enquiry in as
many as 78 cases, details of which have already
been given in the preceding paragraph nos.7, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
22. Pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2022, the
Preliminary Enquiry report submitted by the
C.B.I. being No. PE 0532022S0001 shows that
the cases which were directed to be enquired
preliminary by the C.B.I. were 46, however the
cases shown at serial nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23, and
28 have been repeated at serial no. 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 29 respectively and the F.I.R. said to
have been registered at serial no. 30 of that report
being Case Crime No. 391 of 2017 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C. and
Section 3 (2) V Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station
Shivkuti, District Allahabad is not existing. Thus
out of 46 cases, only 38 cases were preliminary
enquired by the C.B.I. which as are under:-
23.
The
preliminary
enquiry
No.
PE
0532022S0001 with respect to 38 cases is in the
following terms:

(I)Case Crime No. 150
of 2021 under Sections 376-D, 506
I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station Daraganj, District
Prayagraj, which is instant case in the
present 482 Cr.P.C. in which, the
applicant-informant Nikki Devi lodged
against
the
opposite
party
no.2
Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, has sought
prayer to expedite the proceedings.
Findings of the State Police:- The
first Investigating Officer namely, Sri
Jai Prakash Shahi collected CDR of the
accused during the investigation, the
C.C.T.V. footage to ascertain the
movement of the vehcile and recorded
the statement of independent witnesses
at scene of crime and found the alleged
rape allegation suspicious. Since the
prosecutrix
belongs
to
Scheduled
Caste, the concerned Sections of S/ST
Act were added in the case. Therefore,
case was transferred to concerned
Circle Officer (City-V), Prayagraj for
investigation.
During
subsequent
investigation,
accused
Bhupendra
Kumar Pandey, Advocate was arrested.
The Investigation was lastly carried out
by Ms. Astha Jaiswal, who obtained
legal opinion from Sri Gulab Chandra
Saroj Prosecuting Officer, Prayagraj,
for filing charge sheet on the basis of
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1357
material available on record. He opined
positively and suggested that IO may
collect more evidence before filing the
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. No
further investigation was carried out in
this matter and charge sheet was filed
against Bhupendra Kumar Pandey
under Section 376D and 506 I.P.C. only
on the basis of statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The case is at the stage of trial.
Enquiry by the CBI:- The first
informant-victim had provided her
mobile number 6391568409 in the
F.I.R. which was issued by the service
provider on 15.06.2021 at about 11:44
A.M. CDRs of the mobile number
shows that there was no activity on this
mobile number from 12:59 hours on
15.06.2021 to 17.06.2021. She got
issued one more new mobile SIM on
15.06.2021 (the date of incident of
alleged
rape)
in
her
name
i.e.
7607946506
(Ritel)
apart
from
6391568406 (Vadafone). ON this day
at 18:57:58, the location of mobile no.
7607946506 was found to be at Village
Chak Payagi, Pargana Sikandara, Tehsil
Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, which is
about 32 kilometers away from the
place of abduction i.e. C.M.P. Degree
College,
Prayagraj.
Hence
her
allegation that she met with accused
Bhupendra Kumar Pandey near C.M.P.
Degree College at 07:00 P.M. does not
appear to be correct. Sri Sonu husband
of younger sister of the prosecutrix and
his wife were using mobile no.
7754832321
&
9369071845
respectively and on that day i.e. on
15.06.2021, they had talked with the
victim on her mobile no.7607946506.
This
further
confirms
that
on
15.06.2021 the victim was using the
mobile no 7607946506.
The CDR also reflects that during the
alleged time of rape i.e. from 07:00
P.M. to 08:30 P.M. on 15.06.2021, this
mobile number had received three
calls
at
20:06:54,
20:07:48
and
20:22:30 and at the time of receiving
these calls, her location was at Village
Dharauta, Tehil Mau Aima, District
Allahabad
and
Lalganj,
District
Patapgarh which locations are more
than 43 kilometers away from Jhoonsi
area, the alleged place of rape.
The scrutiny of CDRs of mobile
numbers 7318336999, 9792866999 of
alleged accused Bhupendra Kumar
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pandey revealed that on 15.06.2021
from 16:37:31 to 18:42:47, his location
was at Stanley Road, Civil Line,
Prayagraj whereas at around 18:58:40,
he was at Elgin Road, Prayagraj. At
this time he had conversation on
mobile no. 9889100101 which lasted
for about 12 minutes. From 19:11:03
till 20:56:08 his location was at
Kydganj, Bai Ka Bagh, Prayagraj.
CDRs do not reflect his movement to
the place of scene of crime.
Immediately after activation of mobile
number 7607946506 by the victimprosecutrix, the first call was made
from this mobile was at around 12:28
PM on mobile number 8787272838
which was in the name of Sh. Vinay
Shankar Tripathi, being used by Sh.
Vinod
Shankar
Tripathi.
On
15.06.2021, there were 03 more calls
made from this mobile number to the
mobile number 8787272838 of Sh.
Vinod Shankar Tripathi. Sh. Sandeep
Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, who
appeared for Prosecutrix in Crl. Appeal
No.
5350/21
has
stated
that
Vakalatnama for this purpose was
brought to him by Sh. Vinod Shankar
Tripathi
He
denied
having
seen
Prosecutrix in person.
The versions regarding the place of
incident
are
varying
in
victim's
statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, 164
Cr.PC and during inspection of the
crime scene. Residents around the
place of incident have denied the
occurrence of any incident of rape at
that place.
From the CCTV footage of the cameras
located along the route narrated by
Prosecutrix/victim in her statement,
movement of accused's vehicle was not
seen during the relevant time. During
her medical examination, prosecutrix
had named Shri Govind Pandey in
place of Bhupendra Kumar Pandey as
an accused who had raped her.
The above facts do not inspire faith in
the allegations of rape levelled by
prosecutrix against Bhupendra Kumar
Pandey & another. Further, the conduct
of
Sri.
Vinod
Shankar
Tripathi,
Advocate being in constant touch with
the prosecutrix/ complainant during the
relevant period also points finger
towards his involvement in this case.
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1359
The registration of the aforesaid false
case was followed by a counter rape
case wherein Shri Vinod Shankar
Tripathi and his father were arrayed as
an accused on 15.05.2022 in FIR No.
105/2022 of Police Station: Daraganj
lodged by Smt. Samla Giri alleging
gang
rape
of
her
daughter
on
08.05.2022
at
about
07:30
PM.
Investigation by the State Police
established that no such incident had
taken place. In fact, the victim,
daughter of Smt. Samla Giri in her
statement u/s 164 Cr.PC had stated that
no such incident had taken place and
the FIR was got registered on the
directions of her mother. The CDR
locations of mobile numbers of
accused Vinod
Shankar Tripathi,
Brijesh, Rajesh Shukla, Sudhakar
Mishra and Vijay Tripathi were
collected by the State Police during
investigation which reflected that at
the time of incident, the accused
persons were not present at the scene
of crime. Shri Vinod Shankar Tripathi
has alleged that Smt. Samla Giri is an
associate of Shri Bhupender Kumar
Pandey, Advocate and this FIR was
lodged by her at his behest only.
Around this time Smt. Kusum Lata
had stated to be an associate as well
as client of Shri Bhupendra Kumar
Pandey,
Advocate
filed
another
complaint
no.
125/2022
dated
22.04.2022 under SC /ST Act before
C.J.M.
Allahabad
against
Vinod
Shankar Tripathi, his father and
brothers alleging that on 20.06.2021
at around 11:30 PM they forcibly
entered her house at 14/A, Rajapur,
PS Cantt. Prayagraj. Shri Vinod
Shankar Tripathi has stated that as per
the existing norms, the Govt. of UP
gave a compensation of Rs. 6 lacs to
her. In this case against Shri Vinod
Shankar Tripathi and his family, Shri
Jagat Narayan Tiwari is one of the
witnesses in favour of Smt. Kusum
Lata. Shri Vinod Shankar Tripathi has
further stated that Smt. Kusum Lata
had earlier taken similar compensation
in FIR No. 243 of 2018, PS Civil
Lines, Prayagraj in which Sri Jagat
Narayan Tiwari who is star witness in
this case, was made an accused as per
the complaint of Smt. Kusum Lata
Around this time, another FIR No.
114/2022 U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506, 307 IPC PS Phaphamau was
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registered on 21.04.2022 against Vinod
Shankar Tripathi and his father on the
complaint of Bhupendra Kumar Pandey
alleging that on 16.06.2021 while
coming from Shantipuram towards
Ghori Road, his motorcycle was
knocked down by Sri Vinod Shankar
Tripathi by his car and that Sri Vinod
Shankar
Tripathi
and
his
father
allegedly fired bullets on him.
While
the
aforesaid
cases
were
registered against Shri Vinod Shankar
Tripathi, gang rape case was registered
on 24.05.2022 against Shri Bhupendra
Kumar
Pandey, Advocate
&
his
associates with the following details:-

(II)Case Crime No. 144
of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 328,
504,
506
I.P.C.
Police
Station
Phaphamau,
District
Prayagraj
(placed
at
serial
no.45
in
the
preceding paragraph no.7)
Findings
of
State
Police:
The
victim-X in her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. reiterated the
facts narrated in the complaint.
Accused-Wasim was arrested in this
the matter. However, in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
she did not mention the name of
Wasim. She replaced the name/role of
Wasim
with
Bhupendra
Kumar
Pandey, Advocate. Accordingly, a
report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was
filed and Wasim was released from
jail.
The
case
is
still
under
investigation.
Enquiry of CBI:- Analysis of CDRs
established
that
mobile
number
6393579462 of Ms. Mansi Srivastava
complainant/victim was in regular
contact with mobile no. 9335909607
of Shams Vikas and mobile no.
8787272838 used by Vinod Shanker
Tripathi
from
17.05.2022
to
26.05.2022. The location of this
mobile number on 22.05.2022 was at
Jhakarrkati Bus Station, Kanpur at
11:53:54 hours and at Prayagraj Civil
Line Bus Terminal at around 17:22:31
hrs. Thereafter, the mobiles location
was used to be near Teliharganj from
17:50 to 19:16 Hours. She stayed
near Lok Sewa Ayog Chauraha,
Allahabad
from
22.05.2022
to
24.05.2022 (9:26 Hrs).
Analysis of CDRs of mobile numbers
9792866999, 7318336999 of Advocate
Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, revealed
that on 22.05.2022, his location was
7 All. Nikki Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1361
near Civil Lines area, Allahabad only.
He had not visited Phaphamau on
22/23.05.2022 i.e. the date of incident.
Scrutiny of CDRs of mobile number
8787272838 of Vinod Shanker Tripathi
revealed that on 22.05.2022, he was in
contact with the victim Shams Vikas
Advocate (9335909607) and Sudhakar
Mishra Advocate (6394965879).
Scrutiny of CDRs therefore indicate
that at the alleged time of rape incident
, the complainant-victim was present in
Civil Lines area, Prayagraj and not a
Phaphamau area which is about 9
kilometers away.
Advocate Shams Vikas who is close
associate of Vinod Shanker Tripathi,
Advocate has confirmed that Vinod
Shanker Tripathi is anguished by two
false cases against him by Bhupendra
Kumar Pandey and Samlagiri used the
victim
of
Kanpur
to
implicate
Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, his brother
Arun associate Wasim and Shubham
Giri son of Samalgiri in her rape case.
During this period i.e. 17.05.2022 to
26.05.2022, Vinod Shanker Tripathi
was
also
using
mobile
number
9335909607
of
Shams
Vikas
to
communicate the victim-X on her
mobile 6393579462.
Vinod Shanker Tripathi, Advocate
came
in
contact
with
complainant/victim as he had filed
Public Interest Litigation before this
Court in the matter of death of Sri
Jitendra @ Kallu, the brother of the
complainant/victim,
Gaurav
Tiwari,
Junior of Shri Vinod Shanker Tripathi,
confirmed the presence of Ms. Poonam
Srivastava
(sister
of
complainant/victim)
with
Vinod
Shanker Tripathi at the residence of Sri
Dineshwar Mani Tripathi (relative of
Sri Vinod Shanker Tripathi) inside the
Lok Sewa Ayog, premises during the
relevant conspiracy period.
Facts
aforesaid
indicate
that
complainant/victim in conspiracy with
Vinod Shanker Tripathi lodged a false
F.I.R. No. 144 of 2022 pertaining to her
rape against Bhupendra Kumar Pandey,
Wasim, Arun Pandey and Shubham Giri
to settle the scores particularly after the
registration of false cases against Vinod
Shanker Tripathi at the behest of
BhupendraKumar Pandey and Samlagiri
and to extort money from them.
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Immediately after registration of above
referred false gang rape case, the next
day i.e. on 25.05.2022 Smt.Saira Bano
wife of accused Wasim resident of
Dheenpur, Mauaima Prayagraj filed an
application
with
S.S.P.
Prayagraj
alleging her rape by Sri Vinod Shanker
Tripathi, his father and ot hers on
24.05.2022
near
Shantipuram
Phaphamau, Prayagraj. Enquiry has
revelased
that
husband
of
the
complainant is work as Clerk (Munshi)
with Advocate
Bhupendra
Kumar
Pandey.
Another F.I.R. No. 424 of 2022 dated
04.08.2022 under Section 420 IPC.
Police Station Civil Lines, District
Prayagraj
was
registered
on
the
complaint of Shri Bhupendra Kumar
Pandey
against
Vinod
Shanker
Tripathi and his father alleging
manipulation of theHigh Court Order.
He got another FIR No.