# Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 577
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 16936 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-kumar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52242
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
504 & 506: - Applications u/s 482 - during an
inspection which was conducted by the Govt.
officials in compliance of the direction issued by
this court in a Civil Misc. Writ Petition, against
village Pradhan in respect of a complaint moved
by one of the applicants - allegedly, there were
some obstructions were made and some
struggle took place due to which inspection was
not completed - resulted two respective FIRs
were lodged - first was lodged by Applicant-1
against five named accused including Pradhan
Pati (opposite party no. 2) - and second cross
FIR was lodged by the said Pradhan Pati against
the applicant & 2 others person - investigation
- chargesheet - cognizance order - summoning
order - proceeding which was initiated against
the applicants the present application is filed -
court finds that, according to version of both
FIRs, alleged incidence took place in presence of
nodal officer, who was inspecting Pond but
respective investigation officers have not took
endeavour even to record their St.ments to
verify the allegations - since inspection was
conducted in pursuance of an order passed by
this Court, therefore it was an duty of St. to
maintain peace and law & order - they have
miserably failed to do so - further investigation
officer was also failed to submit any medical
examination report - held, it appears that cross
version is false case and injury report of
Pradhan Pati was also manipulated which is
clearly evident from report of medical board -
Pradhan Pati, is an influential person and
investigation of present case was conducted
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under his influence - hence, Application is
allowed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed
upon Pradhan Pati (complainant) for misleading
and
influencing
the
investigation
and
interrupting the inspection proceedings.(Para -
8, 9, 12, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
being likely to incite the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace of an offence
and as referred above even the nature of
abusive language is not on record. There
is no statement to the effect that alleged
abusive language used by applicants was
sufficient to insult the Complainant side
to commit a breach of peace of an
offence. As such, in the present case,
even ingredients of Section 504 IPC are
absolutely missing.

19. In aforesaid circumstances, since
ingredients of Sections 504, 506 IPC are
absolutely missing as well as not only FIR
was lodged after about 11 months, without
any explanation but on basis of above
referred facts present proceedings are
counter blast and were initiated with
motive for wreaking vengeance, therefore,
in the light of A.M. Mohan (supra), it is a
fit case where in exercise of inherent power
present
criminal
proceedings
can
be
quashed.

20. In the result, application is
allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated
19.08.2023, under Sections 504, 506 IPC,
summoning/
cognizance
order
dated
27.10.2023 as well as entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 148979 of 2023 (State
vs. Akanksha Katiyar and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2023, under
Sections 457, 448, 506 IPC, Police Station
Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, are hereby
quashed.

21. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 16936 of 2024

Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Praveen Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
504 & 506: - Applications u/s 482 - during an
inspection which was conducted by the Govt.
officials in compliance of the direction issued by
this court in a Civil Misc. Writ Petition, against
village Pradhan in respect of a complaint moved
by one of the applicants - allegedly, there were
some obstructions were made and some
struggle took place due to which inspection was
not completed - resulted two respective FIRs
were lodged - first was lodged by Applicant-1
against five named accused including Pradhan
Pati (opposite party no. 2) - and second cross
FIR was lodged by the said Pradhan Pati against
the applicant & 2 others person - investigation
- chargesheet - cognizance order - summoning
order - proceeding which was initiated against
the applicants the present application is filed -
court finds that, according to version of both
FIRs, alleged incidence took place in presence of
nodal officer, who was inspecting Pond but
respective investigation officers have not took
endeavour even to record their St.ments to
verify the allegations - since inspection was
conducted in pursuance of an order passed by
this Court, therefore it was an duty of St. to
maintain peace and law & order - they have
miserably failed to do so - further investigation
officer was also failed to submit any medical
examination report - held, it appears that cross
version is false case and injury report of
Pradhan Pati was also manipulated which is
clearly evident from report of medical board -
Pradhan Pati, is an influential person and
investigation of present case was conducted
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under his influence - hence, Application is
allowed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed
upon Pradhan Pati (complainant) for misleading
and
influencing
the
investigation
and
interrupting the inspection proceedings.(Para -
8, 9, 12, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gaon Sabha Vs St. of UP & ors.(Neutral
Citation No. 2023:AHC:224233),

2. Writ - C No. 5703/2023 decided on
20.02.2023
(Neutral
Citation
No.
2023:AHC:40007),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Germane of this case is arising out
of an order passed by this Court on
20.02.2023 in Praveen Kumar Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 5703
of
2023),
Neutral
Citation
No.
2023:AHC:40007. For reference said order
is reproduced hereinafter:

"1.
Petitioner
has
recently
enrolled as an Advocate and being a bona
fide citizen of village concerned he has
filed complaint against existing Village
Pradhan for irregularities committed and
a detailed complaint was presented before
District
Magistrate
concerned.
Consequently, inquiry was initiated under
concerned Rules.

2. Sri Praveen Kumar Singh,
petitioner in person, submits that a notice
was issued to contesting respondent,
however, till date no reply has been
submitted and as such inquiry has not
been concluded.

3. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing for State-Respondents, submits
that since inquiry has been initiated,
therefore, Inquiry Officer will take all
endeavor
to
conclude
inquiry
expeditiously.

4. In view of above, without
expressing any opinion on merit of the
case, the writ petition is disposed with
observation
that
District
Magistrate
concerned will look into the matter and
take all appropriate steps for expeditious
conclusion of inquiry by Inquiry Officer,
in accordance with law."

2. It appears that in pursuance of
above
order,
Government
Officials
conducted inspection of concerned place,
i.e., a Pond. Facts of the case further
disclosed that allegedly some obstructions
were made and some struggle took place
due to which inspection was not completed.
Facts further revealed that on basis of cross
version, two FIRs were lodged. First being
Case Crime No. 0139 of 2023 for offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
504, 506 IPC was lodged by Applicant-1
against five named accused and accused no.
1 being Dharmendra Singh (Opposite Party
No. 2 herein), who was claimed to be a
Pradhanpati (his wife being an elected
Gram Pradhan). Contents of FIR are
reproduced hereinafter:

"सेिा में, िानाध्यक्ष- शिंकरर्ढ
प्रयार्राि, (उ०प्र०) विषयः- प्रिम सूिना
ररपोटा दिा कराने के सिंदभा में। महोदय,
ननिेदन है कक प्रािी प्रिीण कुमार ससिंह पुत्र
श्री अच्छेलाल ससिंह, ननिासी ग्राम- पहाडी
कला, िाना- शिंकरर्ढ, स्िला प्रयार्राि का
ननिासी है िर्ामान समय में मा० उच्ि
न्द्यायालय मे िकालर् करर्ा हूाँ आि
ददनािंक
22.06.2023
को
मा०
उच्ि
7 All. Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579
न्द्यायालय
के
ररट
याचिका
सिंख्या
5703/2023
के
अनुक्रम
समय
करीब
लर्भर् 6.35 PM (शाम) स्िला कायाक्रम
अचिकारी (नोडल िािंि अचिकारी) एििं अन्द्य
अचिकाररयों कमािाररयो के साि ग्राम
पिंिायर् पहाडी कलािं के मिरा बसदेिा में
मनरेर्ा से बने पाका का ननरीक्षण/िााँि कर
रहे िे उसी समय हमारे ग्राम के िमेन्द्र
ससिंह पुत्र थि० छोटेलाल (प्रिान पनर्) एििं
नारेन्द्र ससिंह पुत्र थि० छोटे लाल, पािा ससिंह
पुत्र िमेन्द्द ससिंह, लाल प्रर्ाप ससिंह पुत्र
िन्द्दमखण ससिंह ननिासी पहाडी कलािं, विरेन्द्र
पुत्र निादा ससिंह आदद 4 ननिासी र्ण
बसदेिा, िाना- शिंकरर्ढ एक राय होकर
लाठी, से मेरे ससर पर मारे स्िससे मैं बेहोश
होकर चर्र पडा र्िा मेरे िािा श्री आत्क्मा
प्रसाद ससिंह को भी बुरी र्रह लार् घूसो से
मारे पीटे, मेरे र्ािंि के र्ुलाब ससिंह पुत्र
रािाराम ससिंह ि दल प्रर्ाप ससिंह पुत्र थि०
राम स्ियािन ससिंह, विद्यासार्र पुत्र थि
महािीर ननिासी पहाडी कलािं आदद कई
लोर्ों द्िारा बीि बिाि ककया र्या स्िससे
हम दोनो की िान बिी नही र्ो हम लोर्ों
की हत्क्या कर दी िार्ी असभयुक्र् र्णों
द्िारा बीि बिाि के उपरान्द्र् र्ाली र्लौि
देर्े हुये िान से मारने की िमकी दी र्यी
कक अर्र दुबारा िािंि कराओर्े र्ो िान से
हाि िो बैठोंर्े इस घटना क्रम का
र्ात्क्कासलक िीडडयो भी बनाया है। हम लोर्ो
की िान बिी र्ो देखा कक मेरे िािा
आत्क्मा प्रसाद ससिंह का मोबाईल ि पसा नहीिं
है इस बार् की िि िररये F.I.R दिा कर
सविालािंस से िि कराने की कृपा करे।"

3. A cross version was also lodged at
the instance of Dharmendra Singh, the so
called Pradhanpati against applicant and
two others being Case Crime No. 0140 of
2023 for offences under Sections 323, 504,
506 IPC and contents thereof is also
mentioned hereinafter:

"सेिा मे, श्रीमान िाना प्रभारी िी
िाना शिंकरर्ढ प्रयार्राि उ.प्र. महोदय िी,
ननिेदन है कक प्रािी िमेन्द्र ससिंह पुत्र थि०
श्री छोटेलाल ससिंह ग्राम बसदेिा िाना
शिंकरर्ढ का थिाई ननिाशी है आि ददनािंक
22/6/23 को समय लर्भर् शाम सार् (7)
बिे मेरे र्ािंि मे विकाश कायों की िािंि
िल रही िी र्भी आत्क्मा प्रसाद ससिंह पुत्र
श्री र्ोविन्द्द ससिंह, प्रिीण ससिंह पुत्र श्री
अच्छेलाल ससिंह, विद्यासार्र विचिकमाा पुत्र
महािीर िो थिाई ननिाशी पहाडी कला र्ाि
के है िाद वििाद करने लर्े स्िनको मेरे
द्िारा रोकने पर मुझसे हािा। पाई करने
लर्े ि मुझ मारे पीटे भी और मेरे मााँ बहन
की भद्दी भद्दी र्ाली देने लर्े र्िा मुझ
िान से मारने की िमकी भी दे रहे िे।
अर्ः श्रीमान िी से ननिेदन है कक मेरी
प्रिम
सूिना
ररपोट
सलखकर
उचिर्
कायािाही करने की कृपा करे अनर् कृपा
होर्ी।"

4. Investigation was conducted in
both cases and charge sheet was filed
whereon
cognizance
was
taken
and
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respective summoning orders were passed
by concerned Trial Court.

5. Applicants have challenged charge
sheet No. 162 of 2023, cognizance order
dated 08.12.2023 and summoning order
dated 29.01.2024, arising out of Case
Crime No. 0140 of 2023 (State vs. Atma
Prasad Singh and others), under Sections
323,
504,
506
IPC,
Police
Station
Shankargarh, District Prayagraj, pending in
the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-15, Prayagraj.

6. Notice was issued alongwith Dasti
summon. Certificate of Dasti summon is
filed today which is taken on record that
notice was served upon Opposite Party No.
2, however, none appeared on his behalf.

7. I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar
Singh, Applicant-1, in person, for all
applicants and learned AGA for State.

8. Court takes note that according to
version of both FIRs, alleged occurrence
took place in presence of Nodal Officer,
who was inspecting Pond but respective
Investigating Officers have not took
endeavour even to record their statements
to verify the allegations and have filed
respective charge sheets.

9. Inspection was conducted in
pursuance of an order passed by this Court,
as referred above, therefore, it was the duty
of State to maintain peace and law and
order but appears that the same was not
taken care of.

10. In Village Panchayats elections
for Pradhan are held reserving some seats
for Women candidates. It become a
practice that though a Woman of concerned
Village Panchayat was elected but show is
run by her Husband only declaring
themselves to be Pradhanpati and elected
Pradhan become only a rubber stamp. This
Court in the case of Gaon Sabha vs. State
of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. -
2023:AHC:224233 has deprecated such
terminology and interference of work of a
Panchayat at this instance and for reference
relevant paragraphs of judgment are
reproduced hereinafter:

"1. The term 'Pradhanpati" is a
very popular and widely used term in State
of Uttar Pradesh. It is used for "the
Husband" of a woman Pradhan. Despite
being
an
unauthorized
authority,
"Pradhanpati"
unauthorisedly,
usually
undertakes work of a woman Pradhan, i.e.,
his wife. There are many instances where a
woman Pradhan only acts like a rubber
stamp and for all practical purposes, all
major decisions are taken by so called
"Pradhanpati", and elected representative
just acts like mute spectator. The present
writ petition is a glaring example of such a
situation.

2. xxxxx

3. In the capacity of Pradhan,
petitioner has no power to delegate her
rights, duties and obligations to her
husband or any other person, arising out of
her elected post. The pairokar, i.e.,
"Pradhanpati" has no business to interfere
with the working of Gaon Sabha. If such
act is permitted it will not only frustrate
objective of women empowerment but also
object of providing specific reservation to
women to come forward and join main
stream of politics and increase their
participation in social, economic and
cultural growth of nation.

4. The Court is aware that there
are women Pradhans in State of Uttar
Pradesh, who are exercising their power,
rights and duties and legal obligations
7 All. Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
581
effectively and are doing very good work
for village concerned. However, the present
case does not appear to be such.

5. In view of above, this writ
petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/-
each to be paid by petitioner-Karmjeet
Kaur and her husband, Sukhdev Singh
(Pairokar in present writ petition) by
Demand Draft from their respective Bank
accounts in favour of Registrar General of
this Court within two weeks from today. In
case of default, Registrar General is
permitted to proceed in accordance with
law.

6. A copy of this order be sent to
District Magistrate, Bijnor so that Sri
Sukhdev Singh shall be barred from
entering in the office of Gaon Sabha
concerned
in
the
capacity
of
"Pradhanpati" as well as to act as a
representative of Pradhan for rest of her
present term of office, except as a common
villager.

7. A copy of this order shall also
be sent to State Election Commission so
that it may consider to issue a Circular for
all
candidates
for
future
elections,
cautioning them to be careful in exercising
their powers, functions and duties as a
representative of village not as mere
rubber stamp of her husband or relatives
(in case of woman Pradhan), and it may
include such declaration in their affidavit
filed at the time of presenting their
nomination paper.

8. A copy of this order shall also
be sent to Principal Secretary, Panchayat
Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow to
circulate it to all Gaon Sabha of State of
Uttar Pradesh."

11. It was the duty of State to comply
the said order passed by this Court and to
maintain peace and law and order,
however, they have miserably failed to do
so.

12. Sri Praveen Kumar Singh,
appearing in person, has referred to injuries
allegedly caused to Pradhanpati, i.e.,
complainant of present case. Medical
examination was conducted after five days
and though a fracture of nasal bone was
shown but it does not co-relate with date of
alleged occurrence. He also referred that a
Medical Board was constituted which has
given report being part of this application
that Investigating Officer was failed to
submit any medical examination report as
well as complainant has also not submitted
any report from hospital where he was
referred. For reference said report of
Medical Board is reproduced hereinafter:

"उपरोक्र् विषयक आपके पत्र
सिंख्या-मु०चि०अ०/
आर०टी०आई०/202324/7892,
ददनािंक-16.12.2023
के
साि
सिंलग्न श्री प्रिीण कुमार ससिंह (एडिोकेट)
पर्ा-ग्राम पहाडीकला, पोथट नौडडया उपरहार
शिंकरर्ढ प्रयार्राि का पत्र िो िनसूिना
अचिकार अचिननयम 2005 के अन्द्र्र्ार्
मािंर्ी सूिना से सम्बस्न्द्िर् है, के क्रम में
अिर्र् कराना है कक श्री प्रिीण कुमार ससिंह
(एडिोकेट) द्िारा आई०िी०आर०एस० के
माध्यम से ददये र्ये प्रािाना पत्र ददनािंक11.08.2023 ने इस कायाालय के पत्र सिंख्या-
4390,
ददनािंक
18.08.2023
के
चिककत्क्साचिकाररयों का मेडडकल बोडा र्दठर्
करर्े हुए श्री िमेन्द्र कुमार ससिंह के पुनः
मेडडकल परीक्षण हेर्ु ददनािंक-16.09.2023
की नर्चि ननिााररर् की र्यीिं िी। ननिााररर्
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
नर्चि पर श्री िमेन्द्र कुमार ससिंह पुत्र थि०
छोटेलाल ससिंह पर्ा-ग्राम बसदेिा िाना
शिंकरर्ढ प्रयार्राि को मेडडकल बोडा द्िारा
र्ेि बहादुर सप्रू चिककत्क्सालय प्रयार्राि
एक्स-रे नोि के सलए सन्द्दसभार् ककया र्या
िा. परन्द्र्ु आि ददनािंक-28.12.2023 र्क
श्री
िमेन्द्र
कुमार
ससिंह
की
एक्स-रे
नोिररपोटा
अिोहथर्ाक्षरी
कायाालय
को
अप्राप्र्
है
एििं
िानाध्यक्ष
शिंकरर्ढ
प्रयार्राि द्िारा भी अभी र्क श्री िमेन्द्र
कुमार ससह के पूिा में हुए मेडडकल प्रपत्र
उपलब्ि नहीिं कराये र्ये है। स्िस कारण
बोडा की कायािाही पूणा नही हो सकी।"

13. Sri Praveen Kumar also refers
relevant paragraphs of application being
paras no. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, which are
reproduced hereinafter:

"27. That the applicant no1 an
Advocate, practising before the Hon'ble
Court, and he has made application for
stopping the embezzlement of Government
Fund which are provided to the public
interest, but the opposite party no. 2 has
embezzled the very huge money of public
fund, resulted the implication of fasely.

28. That earlier to the Present
Pradhan of Village of opposite party no. 2
wife namely Jeet Luxmi Singh Patel the
brother of opposite party no. 2 was also
Pradhan of village, therefore, to save skin
of Both Pradhanies Tenure, embezzlements,
manipulation, the opposite party No.2 has
falsely implicated to the petitioner.

29. That earlier to this episode
stated above, the applicant no. 3 has also
made
application
for
stopping
the
embezzlement of Government Fund against
the Pradhan, the muscles persons of
opposite party no. 2 (Namely Lal Pratap,
Bhanja(Son
of
real
sister
of
Gram
Pradhan,
Mahendra
Pal(Real
Jeera)
brother in-law, Manoj Kumar (Bhanja) son
of real sister) have beaten the applicant no.
3 Vidya Sagar, for which he has lodged the
first information report dated 21.08.2022
as case Crime No. 0230 of 2022, under
Section
323,
504,
506
IPC
PS
Shankargarh, Prayagraj.

30. That the accused Lal Pratap
Singh of Case Crime No. 230 of 2022 has a
Criminal
History
in
heinous
crime
implicated in several crimes.

31. That opposite party no. 2 is a
habitual for usurping/ grabbing and
embezzlement
of
Government
fund
provided for public welfare, no can speak
even a single words against the opposite
party no. 2, and there is no personal
interest to make application 23.07.2022
made by the petitioner before the District
Magistrate, Prayagraj."

14. Learned AGA has tried to support
charge sheet as well as summoning order,
however,
all
the
above
referred
submissions remained uncontroverted.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, taking
note of above referred discussion, it
appears that cross version is false case and
injury report of Pradhanpati was also
manipulated which is clearly evident from
report of Medical Board, as referred above.
It
appears
that
complainant,
i.e.,
Pradhanpati, is an influential person and
investigation of present case was conducted
under his influence. Investigating Officer
has not recorded statements of Government
Officials, who were allegedly present on
spot
for
conducting
inspection.
7 All. Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583

16. In view of above, the application
is allowed. Impugned charge sheet No. 162
of
2023,
cognizance
order
dated
08.12.2023 and summoning order dated
29.01.2024, arising out of Case Crime No.
0140 of 2023 (State vs. Atma Prasad Singh
and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506
IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District
Prayagraj, pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15,
Prayagraj, are hereby quashed. A cost of
Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on complainant,
i.e.,
Pradhanpati
for
misleading
and
influencing
the
investigation
and
interrupting the inspection proceedings.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 583
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 19062 of 2024

Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Sri
Shubham Prakash Gupta

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- (Indian
Penal Code-1860 Sections-498-A, 323,
504,
506)-Facts-trial
Court
took
cognizance and summoned the applicants
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act-Marriage of
applicant
no.1
and
complainant
was
solemnized about 5 years ago and despite
making an averment that she has suffered
repeated cruelty and there were repeated
demand of dowry, detail of not a day month
or year has been mentioned. Statement of
complainant and witnesses appear to be
similar
without
any
specific
allegation
against any of applicants specifically in
regard to relatives of applicant no.1 i.e.
applicants no. 2 to 8-There is nothing about
nature of abusive language or there was
any element of being likely to incite the
person insulted to commit breach of peace
at least qua to applicants no. 2 to 8Ingredients of referred offences are not
made out against applicants no. 2 to 8.
(Para 14, 16 21 & 23)

Application partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited: -

1. A.M. Mohan Vs St. Represented by SHO &
anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339

2.Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St. of
Bih. & ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599

3. Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472,

4. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & anr., (2014) 8
SCC 273,

5. Preeti Gupta & anr. Vs St. of Jhar. & anr.,
(2010) 7 SCC 667

6. Geeta Mehrotra & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2012) 10 SCC 741

7. Priyanak Jaiswal Vs The St. of Jhar. & ors.,
2024 INSC 357

8. Achin Gupta Vs St. of Har., 2024 0 INSC 369

9. Mohammad Wajid & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2023 INSC 683

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)