# Rajesh Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 165 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48029
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Mines and Mineral (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 21
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 - Section 3 (2) (a) - ulterior
motives and malafide intention - Judicial
order's cannot be allowed to be passed in
a mechanical manner either by filling in
blanck on a printed proforma or by
affixing a ready made seal etc. of the
order on a plain paper - Application U/S
482 No. -11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.)

Charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer in
a mechanical manner - without considering
the evidence on record - Magistrate without
application of mind and in a routine manner
took cognizance - passed the cognizance
order on printed proforma by filling the
blanks of Sections of I.P.C. and Police
Station etc. - application filed by applicants
with a prayer to quash the summoning
order.(Para - 3,4)

HELD:-Impugned
cognizance
and
summoning orders passed Magistrate are
hereby quashed . Matter remitted back to
Magistrate with a direction to decide afresh
the
issue
for
taking
cognizance
and
summoning
the
applicants
and
pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(Para - 9)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Pankaj Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , Application
U/S 482 No. - 11334 of 2021

## Text

1 All. Rajesh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
215
Swamy case [(2008) 14 SCC 318] , to
which reference has been made in the
earlier part of this judgment, where the
provisions
of
Article
324
of
the
Constitution
vesting
the
superintendence, direction and control of
elections, were considered in detail and it
was, inter alia, held that in addition to
Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961, the powers vested
in the Election Commission could be
traced
to
Article
324
of
the
Constitution."

28. Thus, the argument of the
petitioner that the Election Commission
does not have any authority to recognize a
political party or to reserve an election
symbol also fails.

29. For the discussions made and
reasons given above, we find that the writ
petition is highly misconceived which is
hereby dismissed.

30. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A215
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 165 of 2022

Rajesh Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Saharsh, Tushar Bhushan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Mines and Mineral (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 21
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 - Section 3 (2) (a) - ulterior
motives and malafide intention - Judicial
order's cannot be allowed to be passed in
a mechanical manner either by filling in
blanck on a printed proforma or by
affixing a ready made seal etc. of the
order on a plain paper - Application U/S
482 No. -11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.)

Charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer in
a mechanical manner - without considering
the evidence on record - Magistrate without
application of mind and in a routine manner
took cognizance - passed the cognizance
order on printed proforma by filling the
blanks of Sections of I.P.C. and Police
Station etc. - application filed by applicants
with a prayer to quash the summoning
order.(Para - 3,4)

HELD:-Impugned
cognizance
and
summoning orders passed Magistrate are
hereby quashed . Matter remitted back to
Magistrate with a direction to decide afresh
the
issue
for
taking
cognizance
and
summoning
the
applicants
and
pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(Para - 9)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Pankaj Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , Application
U/S 482 No. - 11334 of 2021

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

1. The Court convened through video
conferencing.
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Heard Sri Tushar Bhushan, learned
counsel for the applicants as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

3. The instant application has been
filed by the applicants with a prayer to
quash
the
summoning
order
dated
25.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist, Gonda, under Sections 4, 21
of Mines and Mineral (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Section 3
(2) (a) Prevention of Damage to Public
Property
Act, 1984
along
with
the
cognizance order dated 25.03.2017 taken
on charge sheet dated 30.12.2017, arising
out of Case Crime No. 0384 of 2017 (State
Vs. Meghnath and others), Police Station,
Paraspur, District Gonda.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the applicants has been falsely
implicated in the present case only with
ulterior motives and malafide intention. He
further submits that charge sheet was filed
by
the
Investigating
Officer
in
a
mechanical manner without considering the
evidence on record and thereafter, the
learned Magistrate without application of
mind and in a routine manner took
cognizance and passed the cognizance
order on printed proforma by filling the
blanks of Sections of I.P.C. and Police
Station etc.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
further argued that the order of cognizance
dated
25.03.2017
passed
by
learned
Magistrate is abuse of process of law and
the same is liable to be quashed in view of
the several orders passed by this Court and
the latest order passed by this Court on
9.8.2021 in Application U/S 482 No. -
11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State
of U.P. & Anr.;) and the present case may
also be decided on the same terms and
conditions.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed
the argument made by learned counsel for
the applicants but does not dispute this fact
that the present case may also be decided in
terms of the order passed by this Court
dated 9.8.2021 in Application U/S 482 No.
-11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State
of U.P. & Anr.;).

7. In view of the submission made by
learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of record, this application is being
finally allowed in terms of order dated
9.8.2021 passed in Application U/S 482
No. - 11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.;).

8. Accordingly, present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed.

9. The impugned cognizance and
summoning orders dated 25.03.2021 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Gonda in
Case Crime No. 0384 of 2017: State Vs.
Meghnath and others), under Sections 4, 21
of Mines and Mineral (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Section 3
(2) (a) Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984, are hereby quashed and
the matter is remitted back to learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist, Gonda with a
direction to decide afresh the issue for
taking cognizance and summoning the
applicants and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made by this Court as well as
the direction contained in the judgments
and order referred to above within a period
of two months from the date of production
of a copy of this order.
----------
1 All. Ishwar Singhal @ Tinu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
217
(2022)01ILR A217
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1979 of 2020

Ishwar Singhal @ Tinu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Durgesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Vinod Kumar

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 354, 498A & 504 , Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4 - after
lodging the FIR, which discloses the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence,
statutory powers of Police, under Section
156
Cr.P.C.
to
investigate
the
case
registered on the basis of information - no
interference
is
permissible
in
the
investigation
in
the
exercise
of
its
inherent
powers,
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C. - this Court has no jurisdiction to
direct a police officer not to arrest the
accused
during
the
pendency
of
investigation of the case - but High Court
can always issue a writ of mandamus,
under Article 226 of the Constitution
restraining the police officer for misusing
his legal power in relation to arrest - Fir
can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C
.(Para - 9)

First Information lodged by opposite party No.4
- during the course of investigation - FIR and its
consequential proceedings challenged before
Court - matter referred to the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of Court - on the first date it
was successfully concluded - opposite party
No.4 enjoying her matrimonial life and residing
with her husband and children .(Para - 18)

HELD:-Impugned FIR and its consequential
proceedings is liable to be quashed in terms of
settlement
agreement
of
parties
before
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
First Information Report is hereby quashed.
(Para - 18,19)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ram Lal Yadav & ors. Vs The St. of U.P. &
ors. , 1989 Cr. LJ 1013

2. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & anr. ,
(2014) 6 SCC 466

3. Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. Vs Babita
Raghuwanshi & anr. , (2013) 4 SCC 58

4. Parbatbhai Aahir & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. ,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 B.S.

5. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr. , (2003) 4
SCC 675

6. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. , (2012) 10
SCC 303

7. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P. , 2021 SCC Online
SC 966

8. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. ,
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Anirudh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Shri Vinod Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.4.

2. This application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
has been filed with request that the matter