# Ram Sunder Shukla & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 556
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-02
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 1685 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sunder-shukla-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52400
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section 228, The Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 307 & 308- The
charge could be altered during trial at any
time
and
at
any
stage
before
the
judgment is passed. As such, even a
charge under Section 307 is framed the
accused
have
still
liberty
to
raise
submission that, on basis of the evidence
led before the learned Trial Court no
offence could be made out under Section
307 IPC- The applicants will have a liberty
to
raise
all
the
legally
permissible
arguments at the appropriate stage that
on the basis of the evidence, which is still
to be led before the learned Trial Court, no
offence is made out under Section 307 or
308 IPC. (Para 12 & 14)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

St.of Guj. Vs Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC
OnLine 1294

## Text

556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
39. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion, the objection raised on behalf
of the State respondents and also the
respondent No. 5, with regard to the
availability of a statutory remedy against
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer in an appeal under sub-section (2)
of Section 35 of the Code, is sustained.

40. The writ petition is not entertained
for the reason of existence of an alternative
statutory remedy.

41. The petition stands disposed
of leaving it open to the petitioner to take
recourse
to
the
statutory
alternative
remedy.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 1685 of 2020
With
Application U/s 482 No. 292 of 2021

Ram Sunder Shukla & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Utsav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section 228, The Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 307 & 308- The
charge could be altered during trial at any
time
and
at
any
stage
before
the
judgment is passed. As such, even a
charge under Section 307 is framed the
accused
have
still
liberty
to
raise
submission that, on basis of the evidence
led before the learned Trial Court no
offence could be made out under Section
307 IPC- The applicants will have a liberty
to
raise
all
the
legally
permissible
arguments at the appropriate stage that
on the basis of the evidence, which is still
to be led before the learned Trial Court, no
offence is made out under Section 307 or
308 IPC. (Para 12 & 14)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

St.of Guj. Vs Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC
OnLine 1294

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

1. The applicants have approached
this Court, by way of filing application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (1685 of 2020)
arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2017
(S.T. No. 628 of 2018), State v. Ram
Sunder Shukla and others, under Sections
307, 323, 325, 308 and 506 IPC, Police
Station-
Handia,
District-
Prayagraj,
pending in the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Room No. 9, Allahabad, as
they are aggrieved by impugned order
dated 25.03.2019 whereby their discharge
application was rejected. The other petition
is arising out of a challenge to framing of
charges.

2. From the records, it is evident
that an FIR was lodged against applicants
that they have committed offences under
Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC. For
reference, the contents of FIR is reproduced
hereinafter:

"प्राथी जगदम्िा प्रसाद र्ुक्ि S/O
मुरिीिर बनवासी पूरेघीसा (िजहा बमश्रान) थाना
8 All. Ram Sunder Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
557
हबडडया बजिा इिाहािाद का रहने वािा ह ूँ आज
बदनांक 14.05.2017 को समय 1.30 िजे बदन
बवपक्षीगण रामसुन्दर र्ुक्ि S/O पारसनाथ, अजय
कुमार र्ुक्ि S/O रामसुन्दर र्ुक्ि रोबहत र्ुक्ि S/O
देवीचरण र्ुक्ि, देवीचरण र्ुक्ि S/O पारसनाथ
बनवासीगण पूरेघीसा िजहा बमश्रान) थाना हबडडया
एकराय होकर हाथ में कट्टा, िािा, रम्मा, िाठी, डडडा
ईर् िेकर प्राथी के घर के िरामदे में जहाूँ प्राथी पररवार
के साथ िैठा था घुस आये और अजय कुमार र्ुक्ि ने
कट्टा हाथ में िेकर िहराते हुए ििकारा बक अि क्या
देख रहे हो िडे मौके से बमिे हैं सिको जान से मार दो
इतना कहकर सिी िोग प्राथी के पुत्र मनीि र्ुक्ि को
िािा से एवं डंडे से मारने िगे मनीि के सर एवं आूँखों
पर गंिीर चोर् आई और वह िेहोर् हो गया िेहोर् होने
के िाद िी वो िोग उसे पीर्ते रहे प्राथी एवं अन्य
पररवार बचल्काते हुए मनीि को िचाने दौडे तो
बवपक्षीगण उन्हे िी पीर्ने िगे प्राथी को सर पर काफी
चोर्े आई एवं उनके िडे िाई रमापबत र्ुक्ि S/O
मुरिीिर को िी हाथ एवं पैर पर चोर् आई घरवािों का
र्ोर सुनकर गाूँव वािे आ गये तो बवपक्षीगण कट्टे से
फाय कट्टे से फायर करते हुये जान से मारने की िमकी
देते हुए एवं बफर बदख िेने की िमकी देते हुए िाग गये
बवपक्षीगण के ऊपर पहिे िी हत्या का केस चि चुका
है ये िोग अपरािी प्रवृबि के िोग है अतः श्रीमान से
प्राथशना है बक प्राथी की प्रथम सूचना ररपोर्श दजशकर
बवपक्षीगण के बवरुद्ध आवश्यक कानूनी कायशवाही करने
की कृपा करे बदनांक 14.05.2017"

3. During investigation, injured
persons were medically examined and their
injury
report
was
taken
on
record.
Statements of injured witnesses and other
witnesses were also recorded and a chargesheet was filed on 07.07.2017 against all
the applicants for offences under Section
323, 325, 307, 308 and 506 I.P.C. The
learned Trial Court took cognizance and
summoned the applicants.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the applicants filed a discharge application
that, on basis of material collected during
evidence, no charge could be framed under
Sections 307 and 308 IPC. For reference,
the contents of discharge application are
reproduced hereinafter:

"1-:यह बक प्राथीगण के बखिाफ िगायी
गयी उपरोका िाराओं से चाजशर्ीर् में मुिबजम िनाया
गया है जो बक इंजरी के आिार पर 307, 308 त0
ह0 की िढोिरी की है तथा अबियुक्त के बवरुद्ध
कायशवाही करने के बिये पयाशप्त आिार नही है तथा
अबियुक्त को उन्मोबचत करने की न्यायबहत मे
आवश्यकता है।
2:- यह बक प्राथी/अबियुक्तगण की पत्नी
जयंती देवो को जगदम्िा प्रसाद पुत्र मुरिीिर मनीि पुत्र
जगदम्िा प्रसाद मनोज पुत्र जगदम्िा प्रसाद, मुरिीिर
अबियुक्त के घर में घुस करके सिी िोग एक राय हो
कर के प्राबथशनी के पबत एवं िेर्े को मारा पोर्ा तथा
कपडे को फाड डािा तथा मनीि र्ुक्िा प्राबथशनी को
तमंचा सर्ाकर िे जाने िगा। प्राबथशनी को िचाने हेतु
देवीिरण, अजय, राम सुन्दर तथा रोबहत ने िीच िचाव
बकया उसी िीच िचाव में मनीि आबद को चोर्े आयी
है बजसका क्रास केस पररवाद संó 2249/2017
ए०सी०जे०एम०१ मे दजश है।
3:- यह बक मनीि र्ुक्िा को उपरहदा
प्राथबमक स्वास््य केन्र से स्वरूपरानी अस्पताि रेफर
बकया गया था बजससे इनका इिाज स्वरूपरानी मे चि
रहा था तथा हल्की चोर् होने के कारण िारT
308,307 नही िन पा रहा था परन्तु बिना बकसी रेपर
के तेज िहादुर ता अस्पताि से डाक्र्र से साठ गाठ
करके सप्िीमेन्री ररपोर्श में इन्होंने पची तरीके से इंजरी
िनवाया जो बक बनहायत खाररज होने योग्य है।

4:- यह बक जगदम्वा की अंगुिी की जो
चोर् है वो िी फ़र्ज़ी तरीके से डाक्र्र से ताूँठ गाूँठ करके
िनवाया है।

5. The above mentioned discharge
application was rejected by the impugned
order and relevant paragraphs thereof are
mentioned hereinafter:

"5. उल्िेखनीय है बक वादी मुकदमा
जगदम्िा प्रसाद र्ुक्िा की बिबखत तहरीर थाना हाजा
में इस आर्य की दी बक आज बदनाूँक 14.05.17
को समय 01-30 िजे बदन बवपक्षीगण राम सुन्दर
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
र्ुक्ि, अजय कुमार र्ुक्ि, रोबहत र्ुक्ि, देवी चरण
र्ुक्ि एक राय होकर हाथ में कट्टा, िािा, रम्िा,
िाठी-डडडा, ईर् िेकर प्राथी के घर के िरामदे में घुस
आये अजय कुमार र्ुक्िा ने क‌ट्टा हाथ में िेकर
ििकारा बक िडे मौके से बमिे है जान से मार दो इतना
कहने पर सिी िोग मनीि र्ुक्िा को िािा एवं डडडा
से मारने िगे मनीि र्ुक्िा के बसर व आूँखों में गंिीर
चोर्ें आयी और वह िेहोर् हो गया िेहोर् होने पर उसे
पीर्ते रहे। प्राथी व अन्य पररवार के िोगों को िी पीर्ा।
प्राथी को बसर पर काफी चोर् आयी। िडे िाई रमापबत
र्ुक्िा को िी हाथों में चोर्ें आयी। बवपक्षीगण कट्टे से
फायर करते हुए जान से मारने की िमकी देते हुए िाग
गये। वादी मुकदमा की उक्त तहरीर के आिार पर थाना
हबडडया में अ०सं० 554/17 अन्तगशत िारा
323,324,506,307
िा०द०सं०
बवरूद्ध
अबियुक्तगण राम सुन्दर र्ुक्िा, अजय कुमार र्ुक्िा,
रोबहत र्ुक्िा एवं देवी चरण र्ुक्िा पंजीकृत की गयी
है। बजसका खुिासा कायमी मुकदमा रोजनामचाआम
रपर् नं० 39 समय 15-30 बदनांक 14.05.17 को
बकया गया। बववेचक द्वारा िेने खूनािूदा र्र्श चेकदार
मनीि र्ुक्िा एवं स्थि मानबचत्र एक्सरे ररपोर्श जगदम्िा
प्रसाद बजसमें तीसरी अल्राकारपि हड्डी में अबस्थ िंग
पाया गया। इंजरी ररपोर्श जगदम्िा प्रसाद र्ुक्िा की 4
चोर्े हार्श ब्िडड आब्जेक्र् ितायी गयी एवं इंजरी ररपोर्श
रमापबत को िी 4 चोर्ें तथा (मनीि र्ुक्िा की इंजरी
ररपोर्श, एक्सरे ररपोर्श, पूरक ररपोर्श तथा गवाहान वादी
मुकदमा जगदम्िा प्रसाद र्ुक्िा एवं चोर्बहि रमापबत
र्ुक्िा तथा गवाहान फदश एवं मजरुि मनीि र्ुक्िा,
सीर्ी स्कैन ररपोर्श एवं ियान अन्तगशत िारा 161
द०प्र०सं० डा० कमिाकर बसंह बजन्होंने चोर्ें बसर पर
दाबहनी तरफ फैक्चर तथा प्राणघातक होना कहा है तथा
डा० राहुि बसंह ने िी पूरक ररपोर्श का समथशन बकया है।
फिस्वरूप अबियुक्तगण के बवरूद्ध िारा 325,308
िा०द०सं० की िढोिरी कर गवाहान के ियान अन्तगशत
िारा 161 द०प्र०सं० में अबियोजन कथानक का
समथशन बकया है। बववेचक द्वारा पत्राविी पर उपिब्ि
साध्य ियान गवाहान व डाक्र्र के ियान, इंजरी ररपोर्श,
पूरक ररपोर्श, फदश खूनािूदा एक्सरे ररपोर्श, एक्सरे प्िेर्
तथा डाक्र्री ररपोर्श के आिार पर उपरोक्त मामिे में
िारा 325,308 िा०द०सं० की िढोिरी की गयी है
तथा बववेचना से संतुष्ट होकर बववेचक ने अबियुक्तगण
उपरोक्त के बवरूद्ध आरोपपत्र अन्तगशत िारा
323,325,307.308,506
िा०द०सं०
का
बवचारण हेतु प्रेबित बकया गया है। बजस पर न्यायािय
द्वारा प्रसंज्ञान बिया जा चुका है तथा पत्राविी बवद्वान
मबजस्रेर् ने प्रकरण अनन्य रूप से सत्र न्यायािय द्वारा
बवचारणीय होने के कारण सत्र सुपुदश बकया गया है।
6. यहाूँ माननीय न्यायािय की बनम्नांबकत
सम्माबनत बवबि व्यवस्था का उल्िेख करना उबचत
समझता ह ूँ।
ज्योबत प्रकार् बत्रपाठी िनाम उ०प्र०राज्य
2006 इिाहािाद दडड बनणशय पेज 186 के मामिे में
यह अविाररत बकया गया है बक इस िारा के अिीन
चि रही कायशवाही में केवि उन्हीं दस्तावेजों को देखा
जा सकता है और उन पर ही बवचार बकया जा सकता
है, बजन्हें अन्वेिण अबिकारी ने प्रस्तुत बकया हो। िचाव
पक्ष के समथशन के दस्तावेजों को केवि बवचारण में
िचावपक्ष के साक्ष्य के समय ही देखा जा सकता है।
इसी प्रकार तबमिनाडु राज्य िनाम सुरेर्
राजन एवं अन्य 2014 (84) ए० सी०सी० 656 के
मामिे में माननीय न्यायािय द्वारा यह अविाररत बकया
गया है बक उन्मोचन प्राथशनापत्र के बनस्तारण के प्रकरण
में न्यायािय को इस उपिारणा के साथ अग्रसर होना
चाबहए बक अबियोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत सामग्री सत्य है। उन
सामबग्रयो एवं दस्तावेजों का जो अबियोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत
बकये गये है इस दृबष्ट से मूल्यांकन करना चाबहए बक क्या
उनके उदिूत होने वािे त्यों से अभ्यारोबपत आरोप के
त्य उदघाबर्त होते है परन्तु इसके बिए उन सामबग्रयों
अथवा दस्तावेजो की गहनता से परीक्षण आवश्यक नहीं
है, वरन उनसे प्रथमदृष्ट्या अपराि का प्रकर्ीकरण ही
पयाशप्त है। बवबि इस प्रक्रम पर िघु बवचारण की अनुमबत
नहीं देती है।
7. इसी कम में यह िी सुस्थाबपत बवबि है
बक संज्ञान अपराि का बकया जाता है, न बक अपरािी
का। अतः आरोप बवरबचत करने के प्रकम पर कोई
व्यबक्तगत अबियुक्त स्वयं के उन्मोंचन की अपेक्षा कर
सकेगा, यबद वह दबर्शत कर सकता है या कर सकती है
की सामग्री अत्याबन्तक रूप से उस बवबर्ष्ट अबियुक्त के
बवरुद्ध आरोप बवरबचत करने के बिए अपयाशप्त है। इस
प्रकार आरोप बवरबचत करने के प्रक्रम पर ही दोि बसद्ध
के प्रयोजन से सामग्री की पयाशप्तता की अपेक्षा नहीं की
जाती है और उन्मोबचन का अनुरोि केवि तिी
अनुज्ञात बकया जाता है यबद न्यायािय यह पाता है बक
सामग्री बवचारण के प्रयोजन से पूणशतया अपयाशप्त है।
बवबि की यह िी सुस्थाबपत प्रत्यास्थापना है बक जि
8 All. Ram Sunder Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
559
बकसी अबियुक्त के बवरूद्ध यहाूँ तक बक ठोस संदेह
उत्पन्न करने वािी सामग्री िी हो, तो न्यायािय
उन्मोचन के अनुरोि को नामंजूर करने और बवबि के
अनुसार, सम्पूणश साक्ष्य को अबििेख पर िाने के
अबियोजन को अवसर प्रदान करने में न्यायोबचत होगा,
बजससे बक दोनों ही पक्षों के मामिे पर बवचारण की
समाबप्त पर समुबचत रूप से बवचार बकया जा सकेगा।"

6. Sri S.K. Shukla, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Utsav, learned counsel
for the applicants submits that initially the
FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 324,
307 and 506 I.P.C. During investigation,
injury report of injured persons were
collected and on basis of it, Section 308
was also included. He further referred that
in case Section 308 IPC has been included,
then no charge could be framed under
Section 307 IPC. Since, an opinion has
been formed that it was a case where an act
was undertaken with such intention or
knowledge that he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of culpable homicide
not amounting murder as mentioned in
Section 308 IPC. Therefore, it could not be
opined that the the said intention or
knowledge was up to the extent that if he,
by that act, caused death he would be guilty
of murder. Learned counsel submitted that
contours of Section 307 and 308 IPC are
absolutely different

7. The above referred submissions
are opposed by Sri Pushpendra Kumar,
learned counsel for opposite party that at
the stage of discharge, the learned Trial
Court has to see whether there was more
than prima facie case against the accused.
At this stage, it could not be ascertained
whether the evidence is sufficient that it
would lead to conviction.

8. Heard learned counsel for both
parties and perused the record.
9. In the aforesaid background,
only
contention
which
required
consideration is whether in given facts, a
charge under Section 307 IPC could be
made out or not. There is substance in the
argument of learned counsel for the
applicants that contours of Section 307 IPC
and 308 IPC are different. Under section
307 IPC, knowledge and intention is in
regard to murder, whereas under Section
308 IPC, knowledge and intention is in
regard to the culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. It is also well settled
as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
State
of
Gujarat
Vs.
Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine 1294
that at the stage of consideration of a
discharge application, the Court has to
consider whether there is a more than prima
facie case against the accused and not that,
whether on basis of evidence, conviction
could be made out or not. For reference, its
para 14 being relevant is mentioned
hereinafter :-

"14. This Court in the
aforesaid judgment has also laid
down principles to be considered
for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 particularly in the
context of prayer for quashing of
charge framed under Section 228
Cr. P.C. is sought for as under:
"27. Having discussed the
scope of jurisdiction under these
two provisions i.e. Section 397 and
Section 482 of the Code and the
fine
line
of
jurisdictional
distinction,
now
it
will
be
appropriate for us to enlist the
principles with reference to which
the courts should exercise such
jurisdiction. However, it is not only
difficult but is inherently impossible
to
state
with
precision
such
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
principles. At best and upon
objective
analysis
of
various
judgments of this Court, we are
able to cull out some of the
principles to be considered for
proper exercise of jurisdiction,
particularly,
with
regard
to
quashing of charge either in
exercise
of
jurisdiction
under
Section 397 or Section 482 of the
Code or together, as the case may
be:
27.1. Though there are no
limits of the powers of the Court
under Section 482 of the Code but
the more the power, the more due
care and caution is to be exercised
in invoking these powers. The
power
of
quashing
criminal
proceedings,
particularly,
the
charge framed in terms of Section
228 of the Code should be
exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should
apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made
from the record of the case and the
documents
submitted
therewith
prima facie establish the offence or
not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person
can ever reach such a conclusion
and where the basic ingredients of
a criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.

27.3.
The
High
Court
should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the
evidence is needed for considering
whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of
framing of charge or quashing of
charge.
27.9.
Another
very
significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot
examine the facts, evidence and
materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material
on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction; the
court is concerned primarily with
the allegations taken as a whole
whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of
the process of court leading to
injustice.
27.13.
Quashing
of
a
charge is an exception to the rule of
continuous prosecution. Where the
offence is even broadly satisfied,
the Court should be more inclined
to
permit
continuation
of
prosecution
rather
than
its
quashing at that initial stage. The
Court is not expected to marshal
the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima facie.""

11. The Court has carefully
considered the contents of Section 307 and
308 IPC and, for reference, the same is
reproduced hereinafter:

"307.
Attempt
to
murder-Whoever does any act
with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
8 All. Vishal Tripahi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
caused to any person by such act,
the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment
as
is
hereinbefore
mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.-
When any person offending under this
section
is
under
sentence
of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is
caused, be punished with death.
308. Attempt to commit
culpable homicide-Whoever does
any act with such intention or
knowledge
and
under
such
circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both; and, if
hurt is caused to any person by such
act,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both."

12. The Court is also of the considered
opinion that the charge could be altered during
trial at any time and at any stage before the
judgment is passed. As such, even a charge
under Section 307 is framed, the accused have
still liberty to raise submission that, on basis of
the evidence led before the learned Trial Court,
no offence could be made out under Section
307 IPC.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants
wants this Court to conduct a mini trial at this
stage and to consider the statements recorded
during investigation at length to give an opinion
that in no circumstances, the charge under
Section 307 IPC could be made out. However,
in the given facts, such exercise could not be
undertaken as on the bare perusal of the
statements and considering the nature of the
injuries caused to three injured persons as well
as that the applicants have used firearm also. At
this stage, it could not be held that there is
absolutely no evidence that no offence is made
out under Section 307 IPC. In this regard,
statement of Doctor would also be relevant,
who has supported the supplementary medical
report as referred in impugned order that
injuries were dangerous to life. No document is
on record which could contradict it.

14. In the aforesaid circumstance, I do
not find that there is any illegality in the
impugned order. However, the applicants will
have a liberty to raise all the legally permissible
arguments at the appropriate stage that on the
basis of the evidence, which is still to be led
before the learned Trial Court, no offence is
made out under Section 307 or 308 IPC.

15. Accordingly, application under
Section 482, No.1685 of 2020 is rejected and
order rejecting discharge application is upheld
and consequently other matter under Article
227 bearing No.292 of 2021 is also rejected
since it is against framing of charges i.e. a
consequential order.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 561
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 6104 of 2024

Vishal Tripathi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Ripu Daman Shahi,
Upendra Kumar Singh