# Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2141 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-verma-sachin-kumar-soni-pawan-soni-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53609
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

u/s233 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for
summoning some police persons for being
examined
as
defence
witnesses
as
also
summoning some documents in evidence;
validity of order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the
Session Judge, Raebareli rejecting application
u/s 233 Cr.P.C.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal procedure-sec. 233Applicant an accused - allegation- commission
of murder - seeks summoning some police
persons
for
being
examined
as
defence
witnesses as also summoning some documents
in evidence- the statements referred to in the
preliminary inquiry report-appear to be relevant
regarding presence of the applicant at a place
other than the place of the incident- statements
of the said police persons would be relevant -
would enable the court to arrive at a just
decision of the case-trial court rejected the
application u/s 233 Cr.P.C.- that the said police
officials have not witnessed the incident -and
the application for summoning those persons
under been filed merely in order to cause delay
-expeditious decision of a criminal trial is
essential - while striking a balance between
expedition and justice- impugned order set
aside and the application u/s 233 Cr.P.C.
deserves to be allowed in part. Application
partly allowed.
Held:
When an accused person whose personal liberty
is at stake, seeks production of some police
persons as defence witnesses, who
had
witnessed that the Dhaba remained open till
02:00 a.m. and the staff members were present
at the Dhaba, this would be relevant for a just
decision of the case as it would prove the
applicant's
presence
at
the
Dhaba
and
obviously, the applicant cannot be present at
the same time at another place about 6
kilometers away from the Dhaba, where the
incident allegedly took place. However, the
show cause notice and the preliminary enquiry
report forming a part of the disciplinary action
taken
against
the
police
persons,
which
preliminary enquiry report does not establish
anything conclusively, would not establish
anything Pagein the criminal trial also and,
therefore, the production thereof will not be
relevant for the trial. The presence of the police
persons at the Dhaba can be proved by their
oral testimony and the production of general
diary of the police station will also not be
relevant for this purpose. (E-9)
Case Law Cited

## Text

7 All. Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153
register and, notwithstanding anything
contained in section 47 or section 57, such
application shall be made to the High
Court and not to the Registrar.

(2) Subject to the provisions of
sub~section (1), where an application for
rectification of the register is made to the
Registrar under section 47 or section 57,
the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, refer the
application at any stage of the proceedings
to the High Court.

Sub Section (1) of Section 125
applies in two situations. The first of these is
when the defendant in a suit for infringement
questions the validity of registration of the
plaintiff-s trade mark. The second situation is
where the defendant in a suit for infringement
raises a defence on the basis of clause (e) of
sub~section (2) of Section 30 by relying on
the registration of such defendant. In both the
above situations, if a rectification petition
were
to
be
filed
subsequently,
such
rectification petition would only lie before the
High Court and not before the Registrar.
Therefore, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent is correct in submitting that
sub~section (1) of Section 125 applies when
the rectification petition is filed subsequent to
the civil suit. The provision clearly prescribes
that the rectification petition shall only be
filed before the High Court in that situation.

8.
In a
situation
where
the
rectification petition was filed prior to the
institution of the civil suit, sub~section (2) of
Section 125 undoubtedly empowers the
Registrar to transfer the application at any
stage of the proceedings to the High Court. By
referring to the pending civil suit, the petitioner
made such request to the Registrar in
September 2023. Especially in view of the fact
that the final order made in the rectification
proceeding is binding on the civil court in terms
of sub~section (4) of Section 124 of the Trade
Marks Act, in situations where a civil suit is
pending, it is appropriate that the Registrar
exercises
discretionary
power
under
sub~section (2) of Section 125 by acceding to a
request for transfer. Therefore, this is a fit case
to direct the Registrar to transfer the
rectification petition.

31. From perusal of the both the
judgments, it is clear that during the pendency,
if rectification application is to be filed, same
has only been filed before the High Court and
not before the Registrar. Not only this, in case it
is pending before the Registrar, he is required
on his part to transfer the same before the High
Court. Law is very well settled that only High
Court is having authority to decide the
rectification application filed under Sections
124 & 125 of Act, 1999.

32. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law laid
down by the Apex Court as well as this Court,
impugned order dated 6.5.2024 is not
sustainable and hereby quashed. Petition is
allowed.

33. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 153
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI , J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2141 of 2025

Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni
@ Pawan Soni ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anil
Kumar
Yadav,
Devansh
Singh
Chauhan, Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Vikas Vikram Singh

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to rejecting an application
u/s233 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for
summoning some police persons for being
examined
as
defence
witnesses
as
also
summoning some documents in evidence;
validity of order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the
Session Judge, Raebareli rejecting application
u/s 233 Cr.P.C.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal procedure-sec. 233Applicant an accused - allegation- commission
of murder - seeks summoning some police
persons
for
being
examined
as
defence
witnesses as also summoning some documents
in evidence- the statements referred to in the
preliminary inquiry report-appear to be relevant
regarding presence of the applicant at a place
other than the place of the incident- statements
of the said police persons would be relevant -
would enable the court to arrive at a just
decision of the case-trial court rejected the
application u/s 233 Cr.P.C.- that the said police
officials have not witnessed the incident -and
the application for summoning those persons
under been filed merely in order to cause delay
-expeditious decision of a criminal trial is
essential - while striking a balance between
expedition and justice- impugned order set
aside and the application u/s 233 Cr.P.C.
deserves to be allowed in part. Application
partly allowed.
Held:
When an accused person whose personal liberty
is at stake, seeks production of some police
persons as defence witnesses, who
had
witnessed that the Dhaba remained open till
02:00 a.m. and the staff members were present
at the Dhaba, this would be relevant for a just
decision of the case as it would prove the
applicant's
presence
at
the
Dhaba
and
obviously, the applicant cannot be present at
the same time at another place about 6
kilometers away from the Dhaba, where the
incident allegedly took place. However, the
show cause notice and the preliminary enquiry
report forming a part of the disciplinary action
taken
against
the
police
persons,
which
preliminary enquiry report does not establish
anything conclusively, would not establish
anything Pagein the criminal trial also and,
therefore, the production thereof will not be
relevant for the trial. The presence of the police
persons at the Dhaba can be proved by their
oral testimony and the production of general
diary of the police station will also not be
relevant for this purpose. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
1. Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha: (2024) 4
SCC 432,
2. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma: (1995)
1 SCC 421
3. K. D. Sharma v. SAIL: (2008) 12 SCC 481
4. Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 2 SCC 114
7 All. Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
155
5. Moti Lal Songara vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu &
Anr : (2013) 9 SCC 199,
List of Acts
Code of Criminal procedure
List of Keywords
Production of a preliminary inquiry report;
application under Section 233 Cr.P.C.; personal
liberty
Appearance of Parties
Counsel
for
Applicant
:-
Anil
Kumar
Yadav,Devansh Singh Chauhan,Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Vikram
Singh

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

1. Heard Sri Devansh Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anurag Verma, learned AGA-I for the
State, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 and
perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section
528 BNSS, the applicant has challenged
validity of an order dated 13.02.2025
passed by the Session Judge, Raebareli in
Session Trial No. 11 of 2020 rejecting an
application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. filed
by the applicant for summoning some
police persons for being examined as his
defence witnesses as also summoning some
documents in evidence.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on
the basis of an FIR lodged on 10.10.2019
against the proprietor and staff members of
Somu Dhaba at Raebareli stating that the
dead body of the informant's son was
found by the police near a godown near
Garhi Khas. Upon making an inquiry, the
informant came to know that his son had
gone to Somu Dhaba along with some other
persons for having dinner. The proprietor
and staff members of Somu Dhaba had
assaulted the informant's son with sticks
and iron bars. The informant expressed an
apprehension that his son had been killed
and the dead body had been thrown near a
godown to give it a semblance of an
accident. The post-mortem examination
report mentions as many as ten injuries on
the dead body.

4.
After
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet dated 25.12.2019. The trial court took
cognizance of the offences and summoned
the accused persons to face trial by means
of an order dated 10.01.2020. The trial
court framed charges by means of an order
dated 16.09.2022. On 12.02.2025, the
applicant filed an application before the
trial court under Section 233 Cr.P.C.
requesting for production of a preliminary
inquiry report dated 18.11.2019 and a show
cause notice dated 19.11.2019 issued by the
Superintendent of Police, as defence
evidence stating that those are relevant as
per the provisions contained in Section 9 of
the Evidence Act. The applicant sought
production of the relevant extract of the
general diary of Police Station Mill Area,
Raebareli which contains entries to the
effect that a police constable was instructed
to go and get the Eatery Somu Dhaba
closed. The applicant sought production of
the then Circle Officer, Dalmau, Raebareli
as a witness, as he had submitted the
preliminary
inquiry
report
dated
18.11.2019 finding certain police persons
guilty of negligence in performing their
official duties concerning the incident in
question.
The
applicant
also
sought
production of the Inspector in-charge of the
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police Station, who had instructed some
police officials to go and get the Eatery
closed. Further, he sought production of a
police constable and a head constable who
had gone to the eatery and who had come
back after getting the eatery closed.

5. The aforesaid application under
Section 233 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by
means of the impugned order dated
13.02.2025
on
the
ground
that
the
preliminary inquiry report is not essential
for a just decision of the matter and its
production has been sought to cause delay
in
disposal
of
the
trial.
Regarding
production of the police persons named in
the application, the trial Court stated that
they have not been made prosecution
witnesses and those persons had not
witnessed
the
incident,
therefore,
production of these persons as witnesses is
not necessary for a just decision of the case.
The trial court came to a conclusion that
the application under Section 233 Cr.P.C.
has been filed with the objective of causing
delay in disposal of the trial and to defeat
the ends of justice.

6. A copy of the preliminary inquiry
report dated 18.11.2019 submitted by the
Circle
Officer,
Dalmau
to
the
Superintendent of Police, Raebareli has
been annexed with the application and this
preliminary inquiry report mentions that
Constable
Virendra
Bhargava
(under
suspension),
Head
Constable
Suresh
Chandra
(under
suspension),
Head
constable
Jagdish
Prasad
(under
suspension), Constable Amit Rajak (under
suspension) are guilty in the matter and Sri
Raj Kumar Pandey, Inspector in-charge
Mill Area, Sri. Raj Kumar Singh, the
Inspector in-charge Harchandpur and SubInspector Pramod Kumar, the Chowki incharge Tripula had acted negligently in the
matter. The concerned Circle Officer was
found guilty of laxity in supervising the
performance of duties by his subordinates.

7. The aforesaid preliminary inquiry
report dated 18.11.2019 refers to the
statements of Inspector of Police Sri Raj
Kumar Pandey, Head Constable Suresh
Chandra and Constable Virendra Bhargava.
The aforesaid police officials had stated
that a telephonic information was received
at 00:09 Hrs. on 10.10.2019 that some boys
were fighting at Somu Dhaba. Two police
persons reached Somu Dhaba on a
motorcycle. Constable Virendra Bhargava
informed at 00:26 Hrs. that the boys who
were fighting at the Dhaba had already
gone away. Thereafter the police persons
remained there till 02:00 a.m. and they left
only after getting the Dhaba closed.

8. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the aforesaid
statements of some police persons that they
remained present at the Dhaba till 02:00
a.m., the Dhaba was open and they left at
02:00 a.m. after getting the Dhaba closed,
would be relevant to prove that the staff
members of the Dhaba were present at the
Dhaba till 02:00 a.m. It is alleged that the
deceased was killed at a place about 6
kilometers away from the Dhaba. The facts
that the Dhaba remained open till 02:00
a.m. and the staff members were present at
the Dhaba would prove the applicant's
presence at the Dhaba and obviously, the
applicant cannot be present at the same
time at another place about 6 kilometers
away from the Dhaba, where the incident
allegedly took place.

9. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a
counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy
of an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the
Session
Judge,
Raibareli
closing
the
7 All. Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
157
defence evidence. This order has been
passed keeping in view an endorsement
made by the learned counsel for the
applicant that defence evidence on behalf
of the applicant Sachin Soni and coaccused Vinay Kumar is closed. The
endorsement has been signed by the
accused persons Vinod Kumar, Sachin Soni
(the applicant) and another co-accused Jai
Chand had put his thumb impression under
it.

10. The State has also filed a counter
affidavit annexing therewith a copy of an
order
dated
21.02.2025
wherein
the
Sessions Judge had recorded that an
endorsement of closure of defence evidence
has been made by the accused persons
Abhitej Singh, R. K. Yadav alias Ram
Krishna Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Harshit
Verma, R. P. Yadav alias Ram Pratap
Yadav, Sumer alias Ram Sumer, Jai Chand
alias Jurha, Vinod and Sachin (the
applicant). The accused persons Saurabh
Sharma, Gaya Bux alias Deepu and Manu
Bari have stated in their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they will not
produce any defence evidence.

11. The counsel for the co-accused
persons Luvkush, Atul Tiwari, Ramesh
Yadav and Arpit stated that co-accused
Luvkush has filed Criminal Revision No.
157/2025, which is pending in this Court.
Till decision of the criminal revision, the
said co-accused persons did not close their
evidence as there was a possibility of the
said co-accused persons getting relief from
this Court. The trial court accordingly, gave
opportunity to co-accused persons Arpit
Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Atul Tiwari and
Luvkush to produce evidences.

12. The learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 as well as the learned AGA-I
have submitted that the applicant has
concealed this order dated 20.02.2025
while filing the instant petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was presented
on 05.03.2025.

13. Learned AGA has also pointed out
that in the order dated 01.03.2024 passed
by this Court in Bail Application No. 2431
of 2024 filed by the co-accused persons
Suresh Yadav, this Court had issued a
direction to the Sessions Judge for holding
day-to-day trial of the case, without
granting any adjournment to any of the
parties. Co-accused Suresh Yadav had
challenged the order dated 01.03.2024 by
filing SLP (Criminal) No. 6746 of 2024
which was dismissed by means of an order
dated 16.05.2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had also requested the trial court to
proceed with the trial expeditiously.

14. The applicant has filed the instant
application and sought stay of proceedings
of trial and has succeeded in getting an
interim order dated 23.04.2025 passed by
this Court staying the proceedings of the
trial, without disclosing the aforesaid
orders passed by this Court as well as by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Seeking stay
of proceedings without disclosing that the
proceedings had been expedited by this
Court and by the Supreme Court, also
amounts to concealment of material fact.

15. The learned Counsel for the
opposite parties have submitted that the
inherent power of this Court recognized by
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary
power and while approaching to seek
invocation of the discretionary inherent
power, a litigant must approach this Court
with clean hands and must disclose all the
relevant facts. Any concealment of any
material fact would disentitle an applicant
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from seeking any discretionary relief from
this Court.

16. The learned AGA-I has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kusha
Duruka v. State of Odisha: (2024) 4 SCC
432, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to the precedents in the cases of
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma:
(1995) 1 SCC 421; K. D. Sharma v.
SAIL: (2008) 12 SCC 481, Dalip Singh v.
State of U.P.: (2010) 2 SCC 114 and Moti
Lal Songara vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu
& Anr : (2013) 9 SCC 199, and has
concluded as follows: -

"6. It was held in the judgments
referred to above that one of the two
cherished basic values by Indian society for
centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same
has been put under the carpet by the
petitioner. Truth constituted an integral
part of the justice-delivery system in the
pre-Independence
era,
however,
postIndependence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values
have gone down and now litigants can go
to any extent to mislead the court. They
have no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenges
posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it
is well settled that a litigant, who attempts
to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final. Suppression of material
facts from the court of law, is actually
playing fraud with the court. The maxim
suppressio
veri,
expressio
falsi
i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the
expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is
nothing but degradation of moral values in
the society, may be because of our
education system. Now we are more happy
to hear anything except truth; read
anything except truth; speak anything
except truth and believe anything except
truth. Someone rightly said that:"Lies are
very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why
most people prefer telling lies."

17.
Replying
to
the
aforesaid
objection, the learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that as the
applicant has assailed validity of the
impugned order dated 13.02.2025 only, the
order dated 20.02.2025 is not relevant for
the present case and the applicant cannot be
said to be guilty of concealment of any
material fact. He has submitted that the
applicant
has
filed
a
supplementary
affidavit on 01.04.2025 annexing therewith
the entire order sheet, including the order
dated 20.02.2025 and, therefore, he has not
concealed any fact.

18. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that the order
dated 20.02.2025 was not relevant for the
present case, is not acceptable and the same
is turned down for the reason that when the
applicant is challenging the validity of the
order dated 13.03.2025 rejecting the prayer
for production of further defence evidence,
the fact that he and his Counsel have made
an endorsement on 20.02.2025 that they do
not want to produce any defence evidence
at this stage, is certainly relevant for the
case.

19. The subsequent order dated
21.02.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge,
7 All. Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
159
Raebareli was in fact also relevant for the
present case wherein the Sessions Judge
had recorded that the counsel for the coaccused persons Luvkush, Atul Tiwari,
Ramesh Yadav and Arpit stated that coaccused
Luvkush
has
filed
Criminal
Revision No. 157/2025, which is pending
in this Court. Till decision of the criminal
revision, the said co-accused persons could
not close their evidence as there was a
possibility of the said co-accused persons
getting relief from this Court. The trial
court accordingly, gave opportunity to coaccused persons Arpit Yadav, Ramesh
Yadav, Atul Tiwari and Luvkush to
produce evidences.

20. Like co-accused Luvkush, the
applicant could also have sought time to
adduce evidence or while making an
endorsement that they did not want to
adduce any defence evidence at this stage,
they could have informed the trial Court
that they were challenging the order dated
13.02.2025 before this Court and they
hoped to get permission for production of
further evidence from this Court, but they
chose not to do so.

21. Although the learned counsel for
the applicant had tried to refute the
submission of the applicant by stating that
the applicant had filed a supplementary
affidavit on 01.04.2025 annexing therewith
the entire order sheet, this supplementary
affidavit runs into 1671 pages and there is
no mention in the supplementary affidavit
about the order dated 20.02.2025. A copy
of the order forms a part of 1671 pages and
it finds place at page 1539 of the
supplementary affidavit.

22. In para 11 of the supplementary
affidavit it has been stated that "after
recording statement of the accused persons
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the aforesaid case
was fixed for defence evidence and the trial
court has illegally and arbitrarily closed the
stage of defence evidence and the case has
been fixed for final argument and since then
the final arguments are going on till date".
Even in this paragraph, although the applicant
has alleged that the learned trial court has
closed the defence evidence illegally and
arbitrarily there is no mention that the
applicant and his counsel both had made an
endorsement on the order sheet stating that
defence evidence on behalf of the applicant is
closed at this stage.

23. This supplementary affidavit is a
classical example of crafty drafting by an
advocate, which has never been appreciated
by the courts. All the relevant facts have to be
pleaded clearly and categorically. The
conduct of the applicant in not making
averments
regarding
the
aforesaid
endorsement made by the applicant and his
counsel on 20.02.2025 and about the orders
dated 20.02.2025 and 21.02.2025 in the
petition and thereafter filing a supplementary
affidavit running into 1671 pages and not
making any averment regarding this in the
body
of
the
supplementary
affidavit,
annexing the order dated 20.02.2025 at page
1539 of the supplementary affidavit and not
pointing out the same during submissions, till
an objection regarding concealment was made
by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, is
nothing but concealment of a relevant fact which
concealment has been given a semblance of
disclosure by a crafty drafting. This conduct of the
applicant or his counsel cannot be appreciated by
the Court, to say the least. The applicant and his
counsel both are advised to be careful in future and
to ensure non recurrence of such incidents which
may invite severe action from the Court.

24. However, this Court is also of the
view that the quality of drafting of petition
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or any concealment made therein, would
not prevail over the cause of justice where
the question of personal liberty of a person
is involved and the facts of the case warrant
giving opportunity of further defence to an
accused person for a just decision of the
case.

25. As the applicant is an accused in a
case alleging commission of murder and
the statements referred to in the preliminary
inquiry report appear to be relevant
regarding presence of the applicant at a
place other than the place of the incident,
statements of the said police persons would
be relevant and it would enable the court to
arrive at a just decision of the case.

26. The trial court has rejected the
application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for
the sole reason that the said police officials
have not witnessed the incident and the
application for summoning those persons
under Section 233 Cr.P.C. has been filed
merely in order to cause delay in disposal
of the trial.

27. Although expeditious decision of a
criminal trial is essential and the courts
must make every endeavor to ensure
expeditious disposal of the trial, while
striking a balance between expedition and
justice, the cause of justice has to be given
precedence even if it causes some delay in
disposal of the matter.

28. When an accused person whose
personal liberty is at stake, seeks production of
some police persons as defence witnesses,
who had witnessed that the Dhaba remained
open till 02:00 a.m. and the staff members
were present at the Dhaba, this would be
relevant for a just decision of the case as it
would prove the applicant's presence at the
Dhaba and obviously, the applicant cannot be
present at the same time at another place about
6 kilometers away from the Dhaba, where the
incident allegedly took place. However, the
show cause notice and the preliminary enquiry
report forming a part of the disciplinary action
taken against the police persons, which
preliminary enquiry report does not establish
anything conclusively, would not establish
anything in the criminal trial also and,
therefore, the production thereof will not be
relevant for the trial. The presence of the
police persons at the Dhaba can be proved by
their oral testimony and the production of
general diary of the police station will also not
be relevant for this purpose.

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I
am of the view that the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 deserves to be set aside and the
application
under
Section
233
Cr.P.C.
deserves to be allowed in part.

30. Accordingly, the application is partly
allowed.

31. The preliminary inquiry report dated
18.11.2019 and the show cause notice dated

19.11.2019 do not prove anything
conclusively and the request for summoning
the preliminary report is turned down. The
request for summoning the entry made in
General Diary of the police station is also turn
down. The request for summoning the
Inspector in-charge, Police Station Mill Area,
Raebareli Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Constable
Virendra Bhargava and Head Constable
Suresh Chandra is allowed.

32. The Superintendent of Police,
Raebareli shall ensure production of these
witnesses without any delay.

33. The counsel for the applicant shall
ensure
examination
of
the
aforesaid
7 All. M/S Asm Traxim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
161
witnesses on the date of their production
and no adjournment whatsoever shall be
granted for this purpose.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 3242 of 2025

M/S Asm Traxim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
Union Of India. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ishan Deo Giri, Sarvesh Pandey, Shad
Khan, Shishir Prakash, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.S.G.I., Ashish Agrawal, G.A., Manu
Vardhana, Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the question as to whether,
upon a one-time settlement of the loan (CC
Limit) between the borrower and the bank, the
criminal proceedings instituted against accusedapplicant, who is neither a borrower nor
guarantor but had business relations with the
borrower, are liable to be quashed.

Head Notes
Penal
Code,
1860
-
ss.
420,471,468,467,120-B - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(1)(d),13(2) -
FIR registered by C.B.I. on complaint of
Union Bank of India alleging that M/s
Govinda International, in conspiracy with
certain
firms
including
applicant,
fraudulently obtained credit facilities and
created
fictitious
sale-purchase
transactions causing financial loss to bank
- Applicants, directors of M/s ASM Traxim
Pvt. Ltd., arrayed as accused - Appellants
sought
quashing
of
entire
criminal
proceedings - Justification:

Held: It is undisputed that applicants are
neither borrowers nor guarantors - Dispute
regarding non payment of loan (CC Limit)
between the borrower and the bank, being
predominantly civil in nature, has been settled
through One-Time Settlement - Bank now has
no subsisting grievance, and possibility of
conviction is remote an bleak - Applicants' case
stands on a better footing than that of the
borrower - Hence, continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to undue oppression
and prejudice - Impugned charge sheet,
cognizance/summoning
order,
criminal
proceedings quashed. [Paras 11, 13] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
K.Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of
Telangana, (2024) 10 SCC 384; Tarina Sen v.
Union of India and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2696; N.S.Gnaneshwaran Etc. v. The
Inspector of Police & Another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1257; Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Another
v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3823; Raman Gopi & Another
v. Kunju Raman Uthaman, 2011 SCC OnLine
Ker 4028 - referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988

List of Keywords
Quashing
of
charge-sheet;
Cognizance
/
Summoning order; Civil dispute; One-Time
Settlement of Loan; Non-Performing Asset;
Hypothecation of goods; Entrustment; Borrower
and lender relationship; Fraudulent intention;
Forged
/
fabricated
documents;
Criminal
conspiracy; Consent terms; Public servant; Bank
officer liability; Procedural lapses; Remote
possibility of conviction.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Application U/s 528
BNSS No. - 3242 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2024
of the Additional Special Judge, C.B.I., Court
Ghaziabad in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5 of 2024.