# Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4859 of 2013
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-kumar-srivastava-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53258
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
482-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section 325,506-challenge tosummoning order-The case stemmed from
allegations by the complainant that the
applicant no. 2, Doctor had conducted a
negligent surgery, leading to cancer and
later both applicants allegedly attacked
her with a motorcycle during her protestHowever, the FIR was lodged after a delay
of
nearly
a
month,
and
subsequent
departmental inquiry had exonerated the
doctor,
holding
a
private
hospital
responsible-The Court noted the absence
of credible eyewitnesses, the lack of
corroborating medical evidence, and the
verified
presence
of
the
applicants
elsewhere at the time of the alleged
incident-The Court found that the FIR was
filed
with
malafide
intent
after
the
complainant failed in earlier attempts to
implicate
the
applicants
through
departmental
channels-Applying
principles from State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Prashant Bharti Vs. St. of
NCT of Delhi, the court held that the
proceedings
were
malicious
and
constituted
an
abuse
of
the
legal
process.(Para 1 to 30)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. and whether the same can be
challenged in appeal under Section 378 (4)
Cr.P.C. or is an order revisable under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not arise in the
present case. The said question is the first
question in the reference.

12. In so far as the second question
challenging
the
correctness
of
the
judgement of Vinay Kumar Vs. State of
U.P.: Criminal Revision No. 3426 of 2005,
decided on 04.09.2007 by a learned Single
Judge is concerned, does not have
relevance in the present matter since in the
said case although the complaint was
dismissed in default vide order dated
05.02.2004 passed by the trial court
concerned but the same was after the
accused therein were summoned for
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. vide order dated
19.09.2002. The order thus therein was an
order under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and not
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The second
question thus also does not arise for
consideration in the present matter.

13. The reference thus needs no
deliberation on the issues in it and does not
deserve to be answered.

14. The reference thus in the light of
the above discussion is returned back to the
appropriate Bench.

15. The matter is directed to be listed
before the appropriate Bench having roster
in the week commencing 15th April, 2025.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 726
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4859 of 2013

Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
482-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section 325,506-challenge tosummoning order-The case stemmed from
allegations by the complainant that the
applicant no. 2, Doctor had conducted a
negligent surgery, leading to cancer and
later both applicants allegedly attacked
her with a motorcycle during her protestHowever, the FIR was lodged after a delay
of
nearly
a
month,
and
subsequent
departmental inquiry had exonerated the
doctor,
holding
a
private
hospital
responsible-The Court noted the absence
of credible eyewitnesses, the lack of
corroborating medical evidence, and the
verified
presence
of
the
applicants
elsewhere at the time of the alleged
incident-The Court found that the FIR was
filed
with
malafide
intent
after
the
complainant failed in earlier attempts to
implicate
the
applicants
through
departmental
channels-Applying
principles from State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Prashant Bharti Vs. St. of
NCT of Delhi, the court held that the
proceedings
were
malicious
and
constituted
an
abuse
of
the
legal
process.(Para 1 to 30)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) AIR 604
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
727
2. Prashant Bharti Vs. St. of NCT of Delhi
(2013) 9 SCC 293

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey,
learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.

2. The instant application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the
prayer to quash the impugned orders dated
19.12.2007 and 22.7.2013 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow
in Case No. 17162/2007, State Vs Ramesh
Kumar Srivastava and Others, as well as
the impugned Chargesheet No. 202/207
dated 18.12.2007 under Section 325 and
506 I.P.C., Case Crime no. 77/2007, Police
Station-Kotwali
Hazratganj,
districtLucknow.

3. From perusal of the ordersheet, it
reveals that the notice was issued to the
opposite party no. 2 on 08-10-2013 and an
interim protection of permanent nature was
also granted in favour of the applicants in
the same order. The registry reported on 0612-2013 while mentioning that as per the
report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow dated 18-11-2013, the opposite
party no. 2 namely, Smt. Sheela Gupta died
on 23-06-2009 while suffering with cancer.
The report reveals that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow has recorded the
statement of the husband of the opposite
party no. 2 namely, Yogesh Chandra Gupta,
the statement of the Head Constable, Sunil
Chandra, has also been recorded regarding
the death of opposite party no. 2.

4. This matter is arising out of a
police case and the state government has
filed it's Counter Affidavit on 07-01-2014.

5. The factual matrix of the case are
that the first information report was lodged
on 08-02-2007 at 20.10 Hrs. regarding the
incident allegedly committed on 15-012007. It is narrated that Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava, the applicant no. 2, conducted
the operation in a careless and negligent
manner at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra,
Malihabad, district-Lucknow, whereupon
the malignancy was developed in the body
of the opposite party no. 2. Further alleged
that when the informant/opposite party no.
2 was sitting on 'Dharna' for compensation
and was returning from the lavatory, both
the applicants hit her with a motorcycle,
with an intention to kill her and they also
threatened her to quit 'Dharna' or to face
dire consequences, as a result whereof, she
fell down on her left elbow, whereafter the
people lifted her and she went under
treatment in K.G.M.U., Lucknow, wherein
her left elbow was found fractured and that
was plastered for six weeks.

6. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicants is that the first information
report was lodged by delay of about two
months, from the date of the alleged
incident and no plausible explanation is
given thereof and further in a very
hurriedly manner, within 10 days of
lodging of the first information report, the
Investigating Officer, without collecting
sufficient evidence, filed the chargesheet.
He submits that the husband of the opposite
party no. 2, namely Y.C. Gupta, Ram Gopal
Bhurji and two other witnesses, whose
statements were recorded, were never seen
the incident and they all are allegedly hear
the occurrence of incident.

7. He submits that the applicants had
no knowledge of lodging of the first
information report and filing of the
chargesheet and as soon as it came into
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their
knowledge,
they
submitted
an
application for further investigation while
appending the enquiry report conducted by
Dr. M.K.Gupta, the then Dy. C.M.O., the
reply dated 28-07-2006 given by the
applicant no. 1 to the notice of the
informant, the certificate dated 22-02-2007
given by the Superintendent, Samudayik
Swasthya Kendra, the cause list of the High
Court, showing several cases of the
applicant no. 1 listed in the High Court on
15-01-2007 i.e. the date of the alleged
incident, affidavit of Kashi Nath Shukla,
Advocate, affidavit of S.K.Ojha, Advocate,
affidavit of Raj Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
and affidavit of Farukh,Advocate and on
the aforesaid application, the Circle Officer
while not satisfying with the investigation
conducted by the first Investigating Officer,
returned the chargesheet with an order for
further investigation, while appointing
another investigating officer and enclosed
the application given by the applicants for
further investigation. He added that the
statements of the defence witnesses were
also recorded by the later Investigating
Officer and the chargesheet has been filed
while ignoring the evidences placed by the
applicants. Further submitted that the
learned trial court concerned without
application of mind, has passed the
impugned order on 19-12-2007 while
summoning the applicants.

8. It is further argued that prior to
lodging the first information report, a false
complaint was given against the applicant
no. 2, namely, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
to the CMO concerned whereafter, an
enquiry was got conducted and the Equiry
Officer submitted the report on 29-082006,wherein it was found that there is no
evidence, which could prove that Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava had conducted
the operation of the opposite party no. 2
and thus, the enquiry against the applicant
no. 2 was dropped but the opposite party
no. 2 under impression that the applicant
no. 1 is the brother of the applicant no. 2
and is a practicing advocate, would do
pairavi in the matter, therefore, without any
cogent piece of evidence, he has also been
hatched in a criminal conspiracy. He
submits that once the opposite party no. 2
had failed to extort the applicant no. 2, she
coined another false and concocted story
against the applicants, so that she could
falsely implicate them and the purpose
which could not be suffice by making a
complaint against the applicant no. 2, could
be otherwise gained by lodging the first
information report against them.

9. He further submitted that the
applicants have taken specific plea that the
applicant no. 2 was posted as the then
Medical Officer in P.H.C., Malihabad and
was on an emergency duty from 14-012007 to 15-01-2007 and thereafter, he was
on Pulse Polio Duty and the duty period
has been certified by the Superintendent of
P.H.C., Malihabad and the statement of the
Superintendent of P.H.C., Malihabad, has
also been recorded in Parcha SCD-I on 2503-2007. He also submits that the applicant
no. 1, could not have been present on the
alleged place of incident on 15-01-2007 as
he was present at the premises of High
Court as he is an advocate and his several
cases were fixed for hearing, but, the
Investigating
Officer,
ignoring
the
statement of four ocular witnesses, namely,
Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, Mr. S.K.Ojha, Mr.
Raj Kumar Dwivedi, and Mr.Farukh,
Advocate, has also erroneously filed the
chargesheet against the applicant no. 1.

10. Adding his argument, he submits
that the informant is said to have sustained
injuries on her elbow, which according to
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
729
her own statement, was caused by falling
down and that may be occurred on her own,
as had there been any intention of the
applicants for hitting the opposite party no.
2 by running over her with a motorcycle,
she certainly, would have got more serious
injuries, more so, there is no medical report
to sustain the allegation of the informant
that she was suffering with malignancy.

11. He further submitted that there is
specific statement that the victim could not
note down the number of the motorcycle,
which can be a natural course, but, since,
the place, where the alleged incident had
occurred, is a public place and there is no
eye witness of the same, whereas one of the
witness namely, Ram Gopal Bhurji, has
stated that informant and her husband told
him that the persons riding on the
motorcycle were the applicants and as such,
he is also not an ocular witness of the
incident.

12. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that the applicants are the law
abiding citizens and they were never
involved in any criminal activity as there is
no previous criminal antecedent of them.
Further submission is that the first
information
is
lodged
against
the
applicants, when the opposite party no. 2
had failed in her malicious and malafide
intention to extort money from the
applicant no. 2 as her complaint was turned
down by the enquiry officer and in such
senerio feeling her to be failed in getting
the money from the applicant no. 2, the
other rigorous mode is adopted by the
opposite party no. 2 while lodging the first
information
report,
which
is
totally
malafide and with an intention to harass the
applicants. He added that the State has also
failed to deny the specific averments made
in the application with respect to malafide
criminal proceedings initiated against the
applicants. Therefore, submission is that
the whole criminal proceedings against the
applicants are liable to be quashed.

13. Contradicting the aforesaid
contentions of learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. appearing for
the State has submitted that in the first
information report, the applicants are
named and the investigation has twice been
conducted as the chargesheet was filed by
the
first
Investigating
Officer
and
subsequently, an application was submitted
by the present applicants before the Circle
Officer appending therein the statements of
the witnesses and the other documents and
thereafter, the matter was directed to be
further
investigated
while
appointing
another Investigating Officer, who after
conducting the thorough enquiry in the
matter and while recording the statements
of all the witnesses, filed the chargesheet.
He next added that there could be no reason
otherwise to name the applicants for
committing the offence, by the opposite
party no. 2. He also submits that the
learned trial court while considering all the
evidences including the statements of all
the witnesses, have issued summons
against the applicants and therefore, there is
no erroneousness in the summoning order
as well as in the chargesheet. Thus,
submission is that the instant application
filed by the applicants may be dismissed.

14. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of the material
placed on record, it transpires that initially
the complaint dated 25.7.2006 was made
by the opposite party no. 2 before the
authorities of the health department,
whereafter, the Chief Medical Officer,
Lucknow appointed Dr. M.K. Gupta, the
then Dy. Chief Medical Officer, (J.D.-
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Grade) as an enquiry officer and after
thorough enquiry, the enquiry report was
submitted on 28/29-08-2006 before the
Chief Medical Officer, wherein it is
concluded that there is no evidence against
the applicant no. 2, Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava that he had conducted the
operation of the informant, whereas the
matter pertains to one 'Isha Hospital' and
therefore, the negligence, if any, is of the
private hospital namely, 'Isha Hospital' and
therefore, the enquiry was closed. It seems
that when the enquiry was closed and the
opposite party no. 2, had failed to succeed
in her purpose, she lodged the first
information report on 08-02-2007 while
alleging the incident of 15-01-2007, though
there is no explanation of the delay,
wherein it is alleged that the applicants
came at the 'Dharna Place' of the opposite
party no. 2 and hit her with the motorcycle,
where both the applicants were riders,
resulting the opposite party no. 2, fallen
down and led a fracture in her hand. In fact
having at glance the whole scenario, this is
not understandable that for what reason and
motive, the applicants would be intended to
commit such offence.

15. It is also evident that the place
where the incident is said to have occurred,
is a public place, but there is no public eye
witness of the incident, whereas, one of the
witness namely, Ram Gopal Bhurji, who
supported the version of the prosecution, is
also not an ocular witness of the incident
and he on the basis of receiving the
information from the husband of the
opposite party no. 2, has deposed before the
police.

16. Further specific plea has been
taken by the applicants that the applicant
no. 2 was on an emergency duty, from 1401-2007 to 15-01-2007 and thereafter, he
was on Pulse Polio Duty, which fact has
been certified by the Superintendent,
P.H.C., Malihabad and his statement has
also been recorded, but, this fact has not
been denied anywhere in the Counter
Affidavit filed on behalf of the Staterespondent.
Further,
with
respect
to
presence of the applicant no. 1, who is a
practicing lawyer of this court since last
more than 30 years, having a good
reputation, is supported by four other
witnesses that the applicant no. 1 was
present in the High Court on 15-01-2007 as
there were several cases of the applicant
no. 1 fixed for hearing, but, this fact seems
to be ignored by the Investigating Officer
as well as the learned trial court while
issuing the summons. Further this fact has
also not been denied by the State in it's
Counter Affidavit.

17. This court is also aware of the
settled law that the plea of ali-bi, could be
considered at the time of the trial,
nevertheless, apparently,once there are four
witnesses with respect to applicant no. 1
that on 15-01-2007, he was present in the
premises of the High Court, but, the
Investigating Officer, did not consider the
same while filing the chargesheet against
him as it is not only the statement of the
applicant no.1/accused, but, that too, is
supported by the version of four eye
witnesses and their statements were also
recorded by the Investigating Officer and
therefore, this fact has become more
particular
and
important
regarding
accusation in the instant matter.

18. As long as the applicant no. 2,
who is a prestigious doctor, is concerned,
was also present on duty at P.H.C.,
Malihabad, as the statement recorded by
the
Investigating
Officer
of
the
Superintendent of the P.H.C., Malihabad, as
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
731
he was on duty from 14-01-2007 to 15-012007 and later on, he was on Pulse Polio
Duty and therefore, it is not understandable
as to why the Investigating Officer was so
adamant to discard the statement of the
Superintendent
of
the
P.H.C.,
Malihabad.

19. This court has also noticed the
fact that if the informant would have
been struck down by the motorcycle
with an intention to kill her, certainly,
she could have sustained other injuries
apart from the fracture and therefore, if
the whole story is channelised, it is
conclusive that once the Departmental
Enquiry Officer submitted his report
after concluding the enquiry and did not
find involvement of the applicant no. 2
in the matter and further once the legal
notice of the applicant no. 2, was
replied by the applicant no. 1, the first
information report has been lodged
while concocting the false and baseless
story against them.

20. Time and again, the scope and
ambit of section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
agitated
and
elaborately
explained/
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding
the
intervenience
for
quashing of the criminal proceedings.

21. The celebrating Judgment
regarding the exercise of powers under
section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
criminal proceedings attended with
malafide or malice, is rendered in the
case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan
Lal, reported in 1992, AIR 604. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
no.
102
of
the
Judgment,
has
enumerated 7 categories of the cases,
where powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised, which are given as
follows :-

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156 (1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
concisely framed seven guidelines and
particularly, the present case is squarely
covered with point no. 7, wherein it has
been held that if a criminal proceeding is
hit by malafide or malicious or instituted
with ulterior motive for hatching an
accused in a criminal proceeding due to
private or personal grudge, the same cannot
be permitted to proceed.

23. In so far as the present case is
concerned, it is prima-facie apparent that
there being without any cogent reason or
evidence, the opposite party no.2 moved an
application to the Chief Medical Officer
with the allegation that because of the
operation conducted by the applicant no. 2,
she had suffered with malignancy, though
there is no medical report submitted in
support of her complaint and when an
enquiry was conducted, it was found that
the complaint is false against the applicant
no. 2 and thereafter, the first information
report has been lodged, while hatching the
applicants in a criminal conspiracy for
personal grudge.

24. Further one of the prosecution
witness, though, he is not an eye witness,
on receiving the information, has deposed
his testimony, which is also unreliable, as is
not supported or corroborated with any
evidence and therefore, the facts and
circumstances of the present matter is
indicative that the first information report
has been lodged with a malafide and
malicious intention, which is squarely
covered with the ratio of the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhajan Lal(Supra).

25. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Prashant Bharti Vs State of NCT
of Delhi, reported in (2013) 9 SCC,293 has
held that for coming to a conclusion for
quashing of the criminal proceedings under
section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the following
questions shall be kept in the mind of a
Judge.

"1. Whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable
and indubitable, i.e. material is of sterling
and in impeccable quality?

2. Whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sufficient to reject
and over rule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e. material is
4 All. Danish Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
733
such, as would persuade a reasonable
person to dismiss and condemn the factual
basis of the accusation as false?

3. Whether the material relied
upon by the accused, has not been refuted
by the prosecution/complainant; and/or
that the material is such, that it cannot be
justifiably
refuted
by
the
prosecution/complainant?

4. Whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an absuse, of process
of the Court and hence, would not serve the
end of Justice?"

26. It is trite law that it would not
only be sufficient for the court to look into
the averments made in the first information
report/complaint alone to find out whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed, but, the court
owes a duty to look into the other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and
if it is required, the court with due care and
caution, would try to read in between the
lines. So far as the present case is
concerned,
the
background
of
the
circumstances indicates that the allegations
levelled in the first information report,
seem to be with a motive to wreaking
vengeance and malafide.

27. Accordingly, this court finds that
the material, which is relied upon by the
applicants/accused persons, is sound and
reasonable and the material, which is
placed, would persuade a reasonable person
to dismiss and condemn the factual basis.
Further, even the prosecution has not
refuted the specific pleadings and grounds
raised for quashing of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants in the
Counter Affidavit and therefore, this court
is of the considered opinion that the trial
would result in a gross abuse of process of
the law and would not serve the ends of
justice.

28. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, there is
sufficient ground for quashing of the
impugned summoning order as well as the
entire criminal proceedings of the case.

29. Consequently, the whole criminal
proceedings including the impugned orders
dated 19.12.2007 and 22.7.2013 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lucknow in Case No. 17162/2007, State Vs
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Others, as
well as the impugned Chargesheet No.
202/207 dated 18.12.2007 under Section
325 and 506 I.P.C., Case Crime no.
77/2007,
Police
Station-Kotwali
Hazratganj, district-Lucknow, are hereby
quashed.

30. Resultantly, the application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

31. The registry is directed to send a
copy of this order to the trial court
concerned, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 733
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8370 of 2024

Danish Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anuuj Taandon