# Rohit Rajput v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 309
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4655 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-rajput-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53366
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 506 & 420 - Negotiable
Instruments Act, - 1881 - Section 138 -
FIR alleges that applicant, along with his
brother and brother-in-law, took ₹9 lakhs
from informant on pretext of securing
government job, handed over fake joining
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter - When fraud was discovered,
cheque given for refund, bounced
-
Charge-sheet
filed
against
accused
persons - Supplementary charge-sheet
St.s pen-drive, cheques sent to FSL and
have been received and attached to case
diary - Investigation closed - Trial Court
took
cognizance,
summoned
accused
persons - Investigating Officer, on SP's
direction, requested Trial court to release
pen-drive
and
cheques
for
FSL
examination
-
Application
allowed,
directed
departmental
action
against
former IO for negligent investigation -
Applicant argued that after submission of
charge-sheet and closure of investigation,
IO had no authority to seek return of pendrive
and
cheques
for
further
investigation - In light of law laid down by
Supreme
Court
in
Vinubhai
Haribhai
Malaviya (infra) and High Court in Jitendra
Singh (infra), Trial Court rightly exercised
jurisdiction in directing FSL to examine
pen-drive and cheques to ensure fair
decision
-
Application
lacks
merit,
dismissed. (Para 3, 4 to 6, 8, 9, 18)
Application dismissed. (E-13)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Rohit Rajput Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
309
applicant
submitted
that
this
observation was made by the Hon'ble
Supreme court on 25.04.2025 whereas the
statement in question had already been
made in September, 2024.

40. The applicant has filed a
supplementary affidavit disclosing his
criminal history of 24 cases. In one of the
cases, he has been convicted for the
offences under Section 499, 500 I.P.C. and
a stay order has been passed in his favour
in SLP (Crl.) No. 8644 of 2023 on
04.08.2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in the interim order dated
04.08.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.8644
of 2023 that: -

"8. No doubt that the alleged
utterances by the appellant are not in good
taste. A person in public life is expected to
exercise a degree of restraint while making
public speeches. However, as has been
observed by this Court while accepting
affidavit of the appellant herein in
aforementioned contempt proceedings, the
appellant herein ought to have been more
careful while making the public speech.
May be, had the judgment of the Apex
Court in the contempt proceedings come
prior to the speech made by the appellant,
the appellant would have been more
careful and exercised a degree of restraint
while making the alleged remarks, which
were found to be defamatory by the Trial
Judge. "

41. At this stage, while examining
the validity of the summoning order, this
Court is not required to go into the merits
of the rival claims and that exercise would
have to be taken by the trial Court after the
parties have availed the opportunity to lead
evidence in support of their respective
claim / defence.
42. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I am of the considered view that
the trial Court has rightly arrived at the
decision to summon the applicant to face
trial for the offence under Section 500
I.P.C. after taking into consideration all the
relevant facts and circumstances of the case
and after satisfying himself that a prima
facie case for trial of the applicant is made
out. The impugned summoning order dated
11.02.2025 passed by the trial Court does
not suffer from any illegality warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers.

43. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and the same is
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 309
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4655 of 2025

Rohit Rajput ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 506 & 420 - Negotiable
Instruments Act, - 1881 - Section 138 -
FIR alleges that applicant, along with his
brother and brother-in-law, took ₹9 lakhs
from informant on pretext of securing
government job, handed over fake joining
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter - When fraud was discovered,
cheque given for refund, bounced
-
Charge-sheet
filed
against
accused
persons - Supplementary charge-sheet
St.s pen-drive, cheques sent to FSL and
have been received and attached to case
diary - Investigation closed - Trial Court
took
cognizance,
summoned
accused
persons - Investigating Officer, on SP's
direction, requested Trial court to release
pen-drive
and
cheques
for
FSL
examination
-
Application
allowed,
directed
departmental
action
against
former IO for negligent investigation -
Applicant argued that after submission of
charge-sheet and closure of investigation,
IO had no authority to seek return of pendrive
and
cheques
for
further
investigation - In light of law laid down by
Supreme
Court
in
Vinubhai
Haribhai
Malaviya (infra) and High Court in Jitendra
Singh (infra), Trial Court rightly exercised
jurisdiction in directing FSL to examine
pen-drive and cheques to ensure fair
decision
-
Application
lacks
merit,
dismissed. (Para 3, 4 to 6, 8, 9, 18)
Application dismissed. (E-13)
List of Cases cited:

1. Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs Sumanbhai
Kantibhai Patel: (2017) 4 SCC 177, (Para 49)

2. Athul Rao Vs St. of Karn.: (2018) 14 SCC 298

3. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs St. of Guj.:
(2019) 17 SCC 1, (Para 42)

4. Jitendra Singh @ Bablu Vs St. of U.P. & ors.:
2023 (4) ACR 3507

5. St. of Orissa Vs Nalinikanta Muduli: (2004) 7
SCC 19, (Para 6)

6. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of U.P.: 2023 SCC
OnLine All 2328 = 2023 (4) ACR 3525, (Para 32)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh,
the learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for
the respondent no. 1-State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the
applicant has challenged the validity of an
order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the
learned IV Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate / Special Judge MP/MLA,
Raebareli in Warrant or Summon Criminal
Case No. 12609/2024, arising out of Case
crime No. 415/2023, under Sections 406,
506, 420 IPC and Section 138 of the
Negotiable Insruments Act, Police Station
Kheeron, District Raebareli, whereby the
trial court has ordered for returning the
pen-drive and cheques to the Investigating
Officer for getting the same examined by
the Forensic Science Laboratory and
submitting its report.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on
23.09.2023 against the applicant and his
brother Rahul Rajpoot and his brother-inlaw Krishna Kumar Lodhi stating that the
accused persons had extracted Rs. 9 lakhs
from the informant for getting his brother
employed in a Government Service and
they had handed over a forged joining letter
of Fertilizer Corporation of India. Upon
coming to know about the fraud committed
by the accused persons, the informant
demanded return of his money. They gave
a cheque which was returned by the bank
unpaid.

4.
After
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet dated 12.07.2024 against the accused
persons for offences under Sections 420,
406, 506 IPC and 138 of the NI Act. On
14.07.2024,
the
Investigating
Officer
submitted a supplementary charge-sheet
stating that the pen-drive containing
5 All. Rohit Rajput Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
311
conversations between the informant and
the co-accused Rahul Lodhi and the
cheques in question had been sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory. Those have
been received back and the same were
being attached to the case diary. The
investigation stands closed.

5. The trial court took cognizance
of the offence on 26.07.2024 and the
accused persons were summoned to face
the trial.

6. On 17.04.2025, the Investigating
Officer gave an application to the trial court
stating that the Superintendent of Police
had directed him to submit the pen-drive
and the cheques relating to the present case
to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
obtaining a report in respect thereof.
Accordingly, the Investigating Officer
requested the court for making available
the pen-drive and the cheques which are a
part of the case diary, for being forwarded
to
the
Forensic
Science
Laboratory,
Lucknow and obtaining a report in respect
thereof.

7. The trial court has allowed the
application by means of the impugned order
dated 17.04.2025 holding that the pen-drive
and the cheques are important prosecution
evidence and the same had been returned by
the Forensic Science Laboratory because of
some deficiencies in the docket. The
Investigating Officer did not send the pendrive and the cheques again to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, which shows negligence
on the part of the then Investigating Officer.
The pen-drive contains the recording of
conversations between the complainant and
the accused, which is an important piece of
evidence and its forensic examination is
necessary for a just decision of a matter. The
Investigating Officer has failed to get the
same examined by the Forensic Science
Laboratory in order to give undue advantage
to the accused persons.

8. The trial court accepted the
application, ordered returned of the pen-drive
and the cheques to the Investigating Officer
for being examined by the Forensic Science
Laboratory and for submitting its report. The
trial court further ordered institution of
departmental proceedings against the then
Investigating Officer for his negligence in
conducting investigation of the case.

9. Assailing the validity of the
aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that after submission
of
the
charge-sheet
and
closure
of
investigation, the Investigating Officer had no
authority to demand return of the pen-drive
and cheques for carrying out further
investigation. He has relied upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel
v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel: (2017) 4
SCC 177 and Athul Rao v. State of
Karnataka: (2018) 14 SCC 298.

10. Replying to the aforesaid
submissions, Sri Anurag Verma, the
learned AGA-I has submitted that the cases
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant have been overruled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latter
judgment
in
the
case
of
Vinubhai
Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat :
(2019) 17 SCC 1. Sri. Verma has also
relied upon a decision rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra
Singh @ Bablu v. State of U.P. & Ors.:
2023 (4) ACR 3507.

11. In Amrutbhai Shambhubhai
Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel:
(2017) 4 SCC 177, a Bench consisting of
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"49. On an overall survey of the
pronouncements of this Court on the scope
and purport of Section 173(8) of the Code
and the consistent trend of explication
thereof, we are thus disposed to hold that
though the investigating agency concerned
has been invested with the power to
undertake further investigation desirably
after informing the court thereof, before
which it had submitted its report and
obtaining its approval, no such power is
available
therefor
to
the
learned
Magistrate after cognizance has been taken
on the basis of the earlier report, process
has been issued and the accused has
entered appearance in response thereto. At
that stage, neither the learned Magistrate
suo motu nor on an application filed by the
complainant/informant can direct further
investigation. Such a course would be open
only on the request of the investigating
agency and that too, in circumstances
warranting further investigation on the
detection of material evidence only to
secure fair investigation and trial, the life
purpose of the adjudication in hand."

12.
The
aforesaid
ratio
was
followed by another Bench consisting of
two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Athul Rao v. State of
Karnataka: (2018) 14 SCC 298.

13.
However,
in
Vinubhai
Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat:
(2019) 17 SCC 1, a Bench consisting of
three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

 "42. There is no good reason
given by the Court in these decisions as to
why a Magistrate's powers to order further
investigation would suddenly cease upon
process being issued, and an accused
appearing before the Magistrate, while
concomitantly, the power of the police to
further investigate the offence continues
right till the stage the trial commences.
Such a view would not accord with the
earlier judgments of this Court, in
particular, Sakiri [Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P.,
(2008)
2
SCC
409], Samaj
Parivartan Samudaya [Samaj Parivartan
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7
SCC
407], Vinay
Tyagi [Vinay
Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762],
and Hardeep
Singh [Hardeep
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC
92; Hardeep Singh having clearly held
that a criminal trial does not begin after
cognizance is taken, but only after charges
are framed. What is not given any
importance at all in the recent judgments of
this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution
and the fact that the Article demands no
less than a fair and just investigation. To
say that a fair and just investigation would
lead to the conclusion that the police
retain the power, subject, of course, to the
Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to
further investigate an offence till charges
are framed, but that the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly
ceases midway through the pre-trial
proceedings, would amount to a travesty
of justice, as certain cases may cry out for
further investigation so that an innocent
person is not wrongly arraigned as an
accused or that a prima facie guilty person
is not so left out. There is no warrant for
such a narrow and restrictive view of the
powers of the Magistrate, particularly
when such powers are traceable to Section
156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section
2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has
been noticed hereinabove, and would be
available at all stages of the progress of a
5 All. Rohit Rajput Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
313
criminal case before the trial actually
commences. It would also be in the interest
of justice that this power be exercised suo
motu by the Magistrate himself, depending
on the facts of each case. Whether further
investigation should or should not be
ordered is within the discretion of the
learned Magistrate who will exercise such
discretion on the facts of each case and in
accordance with law. If, for example, fresh
facts come to light which would lead to
inculpating or exculpating certain persons,
arriving at the truth and doing substantial
justice in a criminal case are more
important than avoiding further delay
being caused in concluding the criminal
proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai
Valibhai
Qureshi [Hasanbhai
Valibhai
Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC
347]. Therefore, to the extent that the
judgments
in Amrutbhai
Shambhubhai
Patel, Athul
Rao
and Bikash
Ranjan
Rout have held to the contrary, they stand
overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh
Rana v. State
(Delhi
Admn.) [Randhir
Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1997)
1 SCC 361] and Reeta Nag v. State of
W.B. [Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., (2009) 9
SCC 129] also stand overruled."

14. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has cited two judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, both of which
stand expressly overruled in Vinubhai
Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat:
(2019) 17 SCC 1 decided on 16.10.2019.

15.
In
State
of
Orissa
v.
Nalinikanta Muduli: (2004) 7 SCC 19,
faced with a similar situation, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that: -

"6. It is strange that a decision
which has been overruled by this Court
nearly a quarter of a century back was
cited by the Bar and the Court did not take
note of this position and disposed of the
matter placing reliance on the said
overruled decision. It does not appear that
the decision of this Court reversing the
judgment of the High Court was brought to
the notice of the learned Single Judge who
was dealing with the matter. It is a very
unfortunate situation that learned counsel
for the accused who is supposed to know
the decision did not bring this aspect to
the notice of the learned Single Judge.
Members of the Bar are officers of the
court. They have a bounden duty to assist
the court and not mislead it. Citing
judgment of a court which has been
overruled by a larger Bench of the same
High
Court
or
this
Court without
disclosing the fact that it has been
overruled is a matter of serious concern.
... We can only express our anguish at the
falling
standards
of
professional
conduct..."

16. In present times, when the
judgments are available on online portals,
checking whether a judgment has been
overruled, is very easy compared to the
previous times when the judgments were
available only in journals published in book
forms and there was a possibility of a
person missing the subsequent judgment
overruling a previous judgment. Nowadays,
the online portals prominently highlight
that a particular judgment has been
overruled and, in these circumstances,
citing an overruled judgment is a matter of
even greater concern. The learned Counsel
for the applicant is cautioned to be careful
in future and not repeat this conduct.

17. Sri. Anurag Verma has also
relied upon a judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra
Singh v. State of U.P.: 2023 SCC OnLine
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
All 2328 = 2023 (4) ACR 3525, wherein it
was held that: -

 "32. ...it is settled principles of
law that the police has a right to further
investigate the matter even after the
submissions of the charge-sheet/report
before the learned Magistrate and even
after the Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the report/charge-sheet. In exercise of
power under Section 173(8) CrPC of the
Code, it has been statutorily recognised
that there is no statutory requirement that
before
initiating
further
investigation,
investigation agency must take permission
of the Magistrate concerned. Further,
investigation is very distinct from the
reinvestigation/de novo investigation or
fresh investigation. Further investigation is
the continuance of the investigation, which
has already been done and on discovery of
new facts or the facts which were left out
during the investigation. Whereas in the
case of the fresh, denovo or reinvestigation,
the investigation already done is required
to be wiped out and investigation is
required to begun from its inception.
Further investigation can be carried out
even without any permission from the
Magistrate concerned. However, fresh, denovo or reinvestigation cannot be done
without
the
specific
orders
by
the
competent court."

18. Keeping in view the law as
clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (Supra)
and by a Division Bench of this Court in
Jitendra Singh (Supra), I am of the
considered view that the trial court has
acted well within its jurisdiction to order
examination of the pen-drive and cheques
in question by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Lucknow so as to enable it to
arrive at a just decision in the matter.
19. The inherent powers of this
Court under Section 582 BNSS are meant
to be exercised to make such orders as may
be necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Any interference in the
impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed
by the trial court would not secure the ends
of justice, rather it will create unwarranted
hurdle in securing the ends of justice.

20. The impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality warranting
interference by this Court.

21. The application under Section
582 BNSS lacks merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 26740 of 2024

Imran Khan & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Diwan Saifulla Khan, Sri Rajiv Lochan
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 155(2) & 482 - Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Constitution
of
India,1950
-
Article
19(1)(g)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - for
quashing charge-sheet and summoning order -
FIR - charge sheet - under Sections 3/4 of