# Pankaj Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 672
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.1395 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-tyagi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48288
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 354, 452, 323,
504 & 506-quashing of charge-sheet and
summoning order-statement of the victim
has fully supported the prosecution casecognizable offence is made out as per
material available against the applicant-At
this stage, the magistrate has to be
satisfied
whether
there
is
sufficient
ground for proceeding, court below is not
required to go into the merit and demerit
of the case-Genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations cannot be determined at
the stage of summoning of the accused-
4 All. Pankaj Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
673
Thus, the impugned criminal proceeding
under the facts of the case cannot said to
be an abuse of the process of law.(Para 1
to 36)

B. It is trite that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly. exercise of
jurisdiction under the inherent power u/s
482 of the code to have the complaint or
charge-sheet quashed is an exception
rather a rule and the case for quashing at
the initial stage must have to be treated
as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the
prosecution. The jurisdiction as such is
rather limited and restricted and its undue
expansion
is
neither
practicable
nor
warranted.(Para 18 to 28)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State
of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757
filing of a false affidavit was the basis for
initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction
and the concerned persons were punished."

10. It was held in the judgments
referred to above that one of the two
cherished basic values by Indian society for
centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has
been put under the carpet by the petitioner.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery
system
in
the
preIndependence
era,
however,
postIndependence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values
have gone down and now a litigants can go
to any extent to mislead the court. They
have no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenge
posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it
is well settled that a litigant, who attempts
to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final. Suppression of material
facts from the court of law, is actually
playing fraud with the court. The maxim
supressio
veri,
expression
faisi,
i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the
expression of falsehood, gets attracted.

11. In view of the aforesaid
authoritative pronouncements of law on the
issue of concealment of facts by a litigant,
if we allow the petitioner to withdraw the
present petition even then we feel that he
deserves to be burdened with cost.

12. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed with cost of ₹50,000/-. The cost
shall be deposited with the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association within a period of
two months. In case of failure, the Bar
Association shall be at liberty to move
application in the present petition for
recovery of the amount from the petitioner.
----------
(2022)04ILR A672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD16.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No.1395 of 2022

Pankaj Tyagi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sundeep Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 354, 452, 323,
504 & 506-quashing of charge-sheet and
summoning order-statement of the victim
has fully supported the prosecution casecognizable offence is made out as per
material available against the applicant-At
this stage, the magistrate has to be
satisfied
whether
there
is
sufficient
ground for proceeding, court below is not
required to go into the merit and demerit
of the case-Genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations cannot be determined at
the stage of summoning of the accused-
4 All. Pankaj Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
673
Thus, the impugned criminal proceeding
under the facts of the case cannot said to
be an abuse of the process of law.(Para 1
to 36)

B. It is trite that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly. exercise of
jurisdiction under the inherent power u/s
482 of the code to have the complaint or
charge-sheet quashed is an exception
rather a rule and the case for quashing at
the initial stage must have to be treated
as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the
prosecution. The jurisdiction as such is
rather limited and restricted and its undue
expansion
is
neither
practicable
nor
warranted.(Para 18 to 28)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) 51 SCC 335

2. Rupan Deol Bajal Vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
(1995) 7 JT 299

3. St. of H.P. Vs Pirthi Chand & anr (1996) 2
SCC 37

4. St. of Bih. Vs Rajendra Agrawalla (1996)
SCALE 1 394

5. CBI Vs Duncans Agra Industries Ltd. (1996) 5
SCC 592

6. Rajesh Bajaj Vs St. NCT of Delhi (1999) 3
SCC 259

7. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & anr. (2005) 1 SCC
122

8. M/s Medchi Chemicals & Pharma P Ltd. Vs
M/s Biological E. Ltd. & ors.. JT (2000) 2 SC
426

9. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs St. of Bih. (2019) 6
SCC 107

10. St. of M.P. Vs Yogendra Singh Jadon & anr.
(2020) 12 SCC 588

11. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab & ors. (2020) 3
SCC 317

12. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2021)
AIR SC 3931

13. St. of Odisha Vs Pratima Mohanty etc.
(2021) SCC Online SC 1222

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr Sundeep Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant and Shri Virendra
Kumar
Maurya,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate assisted by Shri
Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief
Holder, representing the State of Uttar
Pradesh and perused the record of the case.

2. By means of this application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (herein after referred to as
"Cr.P.C."), the applicant has invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court for
quashing the impugned charge sheet No.
263 of 2015 dated 09.07.2017, under
Sections 354, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC,
cognizance and summoning order dated
17.7.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-III,
Meerut,
order
dated
25.10.2017 whereby the learned Magistrate
issued bailable warrant as well as further
proceedings of case No. 646 of 2014,
pending in the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-V, Meerut.

3. Before considering the merits of
the case, it would not be out of place to
mention it here that in the instant case, the
charge sheet was submitted way back on
09.07.2015, cognizance was taken thereon
and summoning order was passed on
17.07.2015, which were challenged by the
applicant before this Court by filing the
instant application on 12.1.2022, i.e. after
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
about six and a half years. When, learned
counsel for the applicant was confronted
with the aforesaid delay in challenging the
charge sheet, cognizance and summoning
order, he submitted that the applicant was
not aware about the initiation of the
proceedings against him.

4. On a query by the Court that
learned Magistrate in the order dated
25.10.2017 has specifically mentioned that
"on the case being taken up, accused did
not turn up, summon has already been
served upon him, issue bailable warrant
against him", learned counsel for the
applicant has belied the order of the learned
Magistrate by saying that aforesaid order
has been passed by the learned Magistrate
on the basis of conjecture and surmises.
Averments to this effect has also been
made by the learned counsel for the
applicant in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 to the
affidavit filed in support of this application.

5. Such types of averments made by
the applicant to explain the delay in filing
this application are highly deplorable.

6. Now I proceed to consider the
merit of the case.

7. The facts that formed the bedrock of
this application in nutshell are that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
moved by the victim on 01.09.2014 before
the Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut with the
allegations that accused-Pankaj, who is the
resident of the same village used to stalk her
with bad intention and was in search of
making sexual relations with the applicantvictim for the last one year. On 01.7.2014, the
accused, with an intention to outrage her
modesty, caught hold of her, but the matter
was resolved by the police by putting
pressure on the family of the victim. On
27.8.2014, when the victim was sleeping in
her room, at about 11.00 PM, accused barged
into her room, swooped her and tried to
commit rape upon her forcibly. On the
shrieks of the victim, her mother wake up and
apprehended the accused, but by using force,
abusing and assaulting her mother, he
managed to escape by extending threat that if
the victim does not make sexual relation with
him, he will attack her with acid. The incident
was witnessed in the light of inverter. The
application further mentions that she has
given information to the police on 28.8.2014
and also sent a letter to the Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Meerut
on
30.8.2014, but since, no action was taken by
the police, she has filed the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. supported by her
affidavit.

8. The aforesaid application was
allowed by the Judicial Magistrate-III,
Meerut vide order dated 26.9.2014 and SHO
concerned was directed to lodge an FIR and
investigate the matter.

9. In pursuance of the order of the
Magistrate dated 26.9.2014, the FIR was
lodged on 28.9.2014 at case crime No. 646 of
2014, under Sections 354, 376, 511, 504, 506,
323, 452 IPC, police station Kharkhauda,
sub-district Sadar, district Meerut.

10. After lodging of the FIR, the law
set into motion and investigation was
carried out by the investigating officer and
on
culmination
of
investigation,
the
investigating officer submitted charge sheet
against the applicant, on which cognizance
was taken and accused-applicant was
summoned, which is the subject matter of
challenge in this application.

11. The main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for the applicant is that
4 All. Pankaj Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
675
the first information report was lodged on
the basis of application and order passed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the
incident which took place on 27.08.2014 by
one Koshika impersonating herself as Neha
on the basis of false, frivolous and cooked
up story, whereas Neha has left for her
heavenly abode on 13.05.2008. In support
of his submission, learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon an undated death
certificate issued by the New Delhi
Municipal Council to show that Km. Neha
died on 13.5.2008 at All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits
that statements recorded under sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. are false and manipulated.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
lastly submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and no
offence whatsoever is made out against the
applicant.
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, impugned
charge-sheet,
cognizance
order,
summoning order and further proceedings
initiated against the applicant are liable to
be quashed by this Court.

13. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the
State submits that on 04.2.2022 when this
case was taken up for the first time, on the
submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the victim,
who has lodged the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 01.9.2014, has
already died on 13.5.2008, State was
directed to obtain instructions. On the basis
of instructions, learned AGA submits that
the death certificate produced by the
learned counsel for the applicant is found
fake
and
manipulated.
Further,
the
applicant has never produced the said death
certificate before the investigating officer
during investigation to verify the truth or
otherwise of the said certificate whereas the
statement of the applicant was recorded by
the investigating officer on 09.7.2015. To
buttress his submission, learned Additional
Government Advocate has produced before
this Court death certificate of Km. Neha,
issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death,
Nagar Nigam, Meerut showing her death at
Ring Road, Lohiya Nagar, Meerut on
24.9.2015. He has also produced a copy of
paper cutting dated 25.9.2015 of Amar
Ujala, Meerut Edition in which it was
mentioned that Km. Neha died in road
accident. Both the documents, produced by
the learned Additional Government are
kept on record and marked as "A".

14. Learned Additional Government
Advocate further submits that statement of
the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 07.10.2014 and supplementary
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on
09.7.2015, whereas her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the
case
diary
on
10.10.2014.
In
her
statements, both under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has fully
supported the prosecution case by giving
vivid description of the occurrence.

15. Learned Additional Government
Advocate also submits that the allegations
made in the FIR as well as material against
the applicant, as per prosecution case, the
cognizable offence against the applicant is
made out. The criminal proceedings against
the applicant cannot said to be abuse of the
process of the Court. Hence this application
is liable to be rejected.

16. Guidelines with regard to the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under
section 482 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by
Apex Court from time to time.
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 (51) SCC 335, Apex Court laid
down certain broad tests to exercise the
inherent power or extraordinary power of
the High court. On the cost of repetition it
is not necessary to reiterate the guidelines.
Suffice it to state that they are only
illustrative.
The
High
Court
should
sparingly and only in exceptional cases, in
other words, in rarest of rare cases, and not
merely because it would be appealable to
the learned Judge, be inclined to exercise
the power to quash the FIR/Charge
sheet/complaint.

18. In Rupan Deol Bajal Vs.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (7) JT 299,
the Apex Court reiterated the above view
and held that when the complaint or charge
sheet filed disclosed prima facie evidence,
the court would not weigh at that stage and
fine out whether offence could be made
out.

19. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
Pirthi Chand and another, 1996 (2) SCC
37, Supreme Court held thus:

"It is thus settled law that the exercise
of inherent power of the High Court is an
exceptional one. Great care should be
taken by the High Court before embarking
to
scrutinise
the
FIR/charge-sheet/
complaint. In deciding whether the case is
rarest of rare cases to scuttle the
prosecution in its inception, it first has to
get into the grip of the matter whether the
allegations constitute the offence. It must
be remembered that FIR is only an
initiation to move the machinery and to
investigate into cognizable offence. After
the investigation is conducted and the
charge-sheet
is
laid
the
prosecution
produces the statements of the witnesses
recorded under section 161 of the Code in
support of the charge- sheet. At that stage it
is not the function of the Court to weigh the
pros and cons of the prosecution case or to
consider necessity of strict compliance of
the provisions which are considered
mandatory
and
its
effect
of
noncompliance. It would be done after the trial
is concluded. The Court has to prima facie
consider from the averments in the chargesheet and the statements of witness on the
record in support thereof whether Court
could take cognizance of the offence, on
that evidence and proceed further with the
trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no
cognizable offence is made out no further
act could be done except to quash the
charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases,
i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide
initiation of the proceedings to wreak
private vengeance process of criminal is
availed of in laying a complaint or FIR
itself does not disclose at all any
cognizable offence - the Court may embark
upon the consideration thereof and exercise
the power.

20. In State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra
Agrawalla, 1996 SCALE (1) 394, the Apex
Court observed as under:

"It has been held by this Court in
several cases that the inherent power of the
court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
should
be
very
sparingly and cautiously used only when
the court comes to the conclusion that there
would be manifest injustice or there would
be abuse of the process of the court, if such
power is not exercised. So far as the order
of
cognizance
by
a
Magistrate
is
concerned, the inherent power can be
exercised when the allegations in the First
Information Report or the complaint
together with the other materials collected
during investigation taken at their face
4 All. Pankaj Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
677
value, do not constitute the offence alleged.
At that stage it is not open for the court
either to shift the evidence or appreciate
the evidence and come to the conclusion
that no prima facie case is made out."

21. These guidelines were reiterated
by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of
Investigation
Vs.
Duncans
Agra
Industries Limited, 1996 (5) SCC 592,
Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi,
1999
(3)
SCC
259
and
Zandu
Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another
(2005) 1 SCC 122.

22. In M/s Medchl Chemicals and
Pharma P limited Vs. M/s Biological E.
Limited and others, JT 2000 (2) SC 426,
Apex Court held thus:

" Exercise of jurisdiction under the
inherent power as envisaged in Section 482
of the code to have the complaint or the
charge sheet quashed is an exception
rather a rule and the case for quashing at
the initial stage must have to be treated as
rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the
prosecution. With the lodgment of First
Information Report the ball is set to roll
and thenceforth the law takes its own
course and the investigation ensues in
accordance with the provisions of law. The
jurisdiction as such is rather limited and
restricted and its undue expansion is
neither practicable nor warranted."

23. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs.
State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
under Section 323, 379 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that
a prima facie case was made out against the
respondents therein on the basis of
allegations made in the complaint. Patna
High Court set aside the order of
Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence.
The Apex Court, while setting aside the
order of the Patna High Court, held thus:

"in our view, the High Court had no
jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of
the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short "Cr.P.C") because whether are are
contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the
statements of the witnesses is essentially an
issue relating to appreciation of evidence
and the same can be gone into by the
Judicial Magistrate during trial when the
entire evidence is adduced by the parties.
That stage is yet to come in this case."

24. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Yogendra Singh Jadon and another,
(2020) 12 SCC 588, after the registration of
FIR, a charge sheet under Section 420, 406,
409, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed.
The Special Judge passed an order framing
charges against Yogendra Singh Jadon and
others. That order was challenged before
the High Court by way of filing criminal
revision. The High Court found that the
offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC
were not made out. The Apex Court while
setting aside the order of the High Court
held that the High Court has examined the
entire issue as to whether the offence under
Sections 420 and 120-B is made out or not
at pre trial stage. The power under Section
482 of the code of Criminal Procedure
cannot be exercised where the allegations
are required to be proved in court of law.

25. The Apex Court in Rajeev
Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others, (2020)3
SCC 317, the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh quashed the criminal proceedings
on the basis of assessment of statements of
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. The Apex Court set aside the order
of the High Court by holding that
statements of the witnesses recorded under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
being
wholly
inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken
into consideration by the Court, while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482 of the Code.

26. In Kaptan Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2021 SC
3931, the charge sheet was submitted by
the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence
from the place of incident and taking
statement of the independent witnesses and
even statement of the accused persons. The
cognizance of the offence was also taken
by the learned Magistrate. The High Court
has quashed the criminal proceedings for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
406, 329 and 386 IPC initiated against the
applicant.

27. The Apex Court while quashing the
order of the Allahabad High Court, held that
the High Court is not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and /or to enter into
the merits of the as if the High Court is
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and /or
conducting the trial. High Court has exceeded
its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of poowers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has failed
to appreciate and consider the fact that there
are very serious triable issue/allegations which
are required to be gone into and considered at
the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight
of crucial aspects which have emerged during
the course of the investigation.

28. In State of Odisha Vs. Pratima
Mohanty etc. , 2021 SCC Online SC 1222,
Apex Court, while quashing the order of
Odisha High Court, held thus:

"It is trite that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection and in rate cases. As per
settled proposition of law while examining
an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
Normally the criminal proceedings should
not be quashed in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough
investigation the charge sheet has been
filed. At the stage of discharge and/or
considering the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to
go into the merits of the allegations and/or
evidence in details as if conducting the mini
trial. As held by this Court the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the
court to be more cautious. It casts an
onerous and more diligent duty on the
Court."

29.
In
view of
the
aforesaid
pronouncements of the Apex Court, I have
examined the matter in its totality and I find
that the case of the applicant does not fall
within the categories of rarest of rare cases.
This Court is of the view that the appreciation
of evidence is a function of the trial court and
this Court in exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction
and put to an end to the process of trial
provided under the law.

30. It is well settled by the Apex
Court in the aforementioned judgments that
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pretrial stage should not be used in a routine
4 All. Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
679
manner, but it has to be used sparingly,
only in such an appropriate cases, where it
manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the
criminal proceedings or where allegations
made in first information report or chargesheet and the materials relied in support of
thereof, taking on their face value and
accepting in their entirety do not disclose
the commission of any offence against the
accused.

31. This Court is further of the view
that the grounds taken in the application
reveal that many of them relate to
disputed question of fact, which cannot
be adjudicated by this Court at the pretrial
stage,
which
can
be
more
appropriately gone into by the trial court
at the appropriate stage. The applicant
has an alternative statutory remedy of
moving discharge application at the
appropriate stage.

32. The taking of cognizance of the
offence is an area exclusively within the
domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the
magistrate has to be satisfied whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
and not whether there is sufficient ground
for conviction. At that stage the court
below is not required to go into the merit
and demerit of the case. Genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations cannot be
even
determined
at
the
stage
of
summoning the accused.

33. Having considered the facts,
circumstances and nature of allegations
against the applicant in the instant case, I
am of the considered view that a prima
facie cognizable offence is made out
against the applicant. The impugned
criminal proceeding under the facts of
this case cannot said to be an abuse of the
process of the Court.

34. In view of what has been
indicated herein above, I am of the view
that there is no good ground to invoke
inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by this
Court.

35. Accordingly, the relief as sought
by the applicant by means of the instant
application is hereby refused.

36. This application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
accordingly rejected.

37. The trial court is directed to
proceed
against
the
applicant
in
accordance with law.

38. Office is directed to transmit a
copy of this order to the learned Trial
Court with a week.
----------

(2022)04ILR A679
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 4483 of 2022

Vipin Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.