# Sanjeet Rathi @ Bhuvnesh Rathi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12670 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeet-rathi-bhuvnesh-rathi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49093
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 & 216 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A,
304B & 3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961 - alteration of
charge-FIR
was
lodged

and
after
completion of investigation, charge sheet
was submitted u/s 498A, 304B & 3⁄4 D.P.
Act-Further investigation was conducted
in the matter and the supplementary
charge sheet was submitted-prior to
submission of supplementary charge sheet
discharge application was moved which
was rejected-However, after submitting
the
supplementary
charge
sheet,
an
application for alteration of charge was
moved which was rejected by court below
without application of mind-While it is
necessary for the Magistrate, to have due
regard to both the reports while passing
the cognizance order.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke &
ors. Vs Joseph Joseph & ors. (2022) LiveLaw
SC 230

## Text

9 All. Sanjeet Rathi @ Bhuvnesh Rathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12670 of 2022

Sanjeet Rathi @ Bhuvnesh Rathi
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Sri Amit Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 & 216 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A,
304B & 3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961 - alteration of
charge-FIR
was
lodged

and
after
completion of investigation, charge sheet
was submitted u/s 498A, 304B & 3⁄4 D.P.
Act-Further investigation was conducted
in the matter and the supplementary
charge sheet was submitted-prior to
submission of supplementary charge sheet
discharge application was moved which
was rejected-However, after submitting
the
supplementary
charge
sheet,
an
application for alteration of charge was
moved which was rejected by court below
without application of mind-While it is
necessary for the Magistrate, to have due
regard to both the reports while passing
the cognizance order.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke &
ors. Vs Joseph Joseph & ors. (2022) LiveLaw
SC 230

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. In compliance of the order of this
Court dated 02.09.2022, Mr. Amit Kumar
Srivastava,
Advocate,
Advocate
Roll
No.A/A 067/2019, Common Room No.3,
Mobile No. 9415653155 is present before
this Court along with Mr. Vijai Kumar
Tiwari, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.A/V
0108/2012, Chamber/Seat No.1, Mobile
No. 9415291367.

2. Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate,
Advocate
Roll
No.0A/A
0578/2012 to be read as Amit Kumar
Srivastava-1
and
Mr.
Amit
Kumar
Srivastava,
Advocate,
Advocate
Roll
No.A/A 067/2019 to be read as Amit
Kumar Srivastava-2.

3. As informed by Mr. Amit Kumar
Srivastava,
Advocate
AoR
No.0A/A
0578/2012, Mobile No.9415217295 that
counsel
bearing
the
same
name
has
misguided his client, using his name and has
filed his Vakalatnama in the present case.
Explanation was sought from the aforesaid
counsels and they informed that the district
Court counsel had asked Mr. Vijai Kumar
Tiwari, Advocate to engage Mr. Amit Kumar
Srivastava-1
as
counsel,
therefore,
he
approached him, however, due to the high
engagement fees as asked by him, he
engaged Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-2.
When the client approached Mr. Amit Kumar
Srivastava-1 then he came to know about
engagement of Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-2
by Mr. Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Mr. Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
has shifted the burden of such mistake upon
the district Court counsel as well as the
client and both the counsels Mr. Vijai
Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Amit Kumar
Srivastava-2 tender unconditional apology
for the harassment faced by Mr. Amit
Kumar Srivastava-1 in such situation. They
also submit that they will be cautious in
future while accepting the brief from
district Court counsels.

5. This Court has come across the
situation frequently where counsels bearing
the same name, as in the present case, are
being cheated by the clients in district
Court as well as the counsels bearing the
same name is giving brief to some other
counsel of similar name.

6. In such situation, conscious effort
should be made by Bar Council to do the
needful so that the counsel having similar
names do not face the difficulty as has
been in the present case. For example,
numbers may be given to the counsels like
Amit Kumar Srivastava-1, 2 and 3 e.t.c. so
that the Court and everyone may come to
know as to who the counsel is. Thus, Mr.
Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate AoR
No.0A/A0578/2012
will
move
an
application before the Bar Council of
Uttar Pradesh to do the needful in this
respect.

7. The Chairman of Bar Council of
Uttar
Pradesh
is
directed
to
take
appropriate measures to help the counsels
bearing the similar names so that such
situation, as in the present case, may not be
created.

8. The Registrar General of High
Court Allahabad is also directed to ensure
the compliance of the aforesaid order.

9. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate AoR No.A/A 0578/2012, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

10. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the applicant with prayer
to quash the order dated 28.09.2021 passed
by Additional District Judge-5th, Bareilly
on the application under Section 216
Cr.P.C. for alter of charge in S.T. No. 118
of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.569
of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C.
& Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Fatehganj
West, District-Bareilly. It has been further
prayed to direct the Court below to alter the
charge under Section 306 I.P.C. on the
ground of supplementary case diary no.35
dated 25.08.2020.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that earlier an F.I.R. was lodged
under Sections 498A, 304B and Section 3/4
D.P. Act. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted under Sections
498A, 304B and Section 3/4 D.P. Act on
25.01.2019. However, by order of the S.S.P.
concerned,
further
investigation
was
conducted
in
the
matter
and
the
supplementary charge sheet was submitted,
as is evident from order dated 07.02.2020,
placed at page 48 of the application by
means of which, supplementary charge
sheet regarding the offence under Section
306 I.P.C. has been placed on record.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that prior to submission of
supplementary charge sheet, discharge
application was moved which was rejected.
However,
after
coming
of
the
supplementary charge sheet, an application
for alteration of charge was moved which
has been rejected by the order impugned in
an illegal manner and without application
9 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Nitin Agnihotri & Ors.
649
of judicial mind. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that in view of
several judgements passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as High Court, while passing
the order impugned, the Court concerned
should have considered the charge sheet as
well as supplementary charge sheet. In
support of his submission he has relied
upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in Luckose Zachariah @ Zak
Nedumchira Luke and Others Vs.
Joseph Joseph and Others reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230, where in, it has
been held that it is necessary for the
Magistrate, to have due regard to both the
reports, the initial report which was
submitted under Section 173(2) as well as
the supplementary report which was
submitted after further investigation, in
terms of Section 173(8) while passing the
cognizance order.

13. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute
the correctness of the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the applicant and he
has no objection if the order dated
28.09.2021 is set aside.

14. This Court feels that Court
concerned while passing the order dated
28.09.2021 has not applied its mind and has
not considered the aforesaid supplementary
charge sheet.

15. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the order dated
28.09.2021 passed by Additional District
Judge-5th, Bareilly cannot be legally
sustained and is set aside and the same is
remitted back to him for decision afresh.
While deciding the matter afresh, the
concerned Court shall pass a reasoned and
speaking
order,
after
taking
into
consideration the charge sheet as well as
supplementary charge sheet, in accordance
with law, preferably within a period of one
month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

16. With the aforesaid directions/
observations,
this
application
stands
allowed.

17. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the Court concerned forthwith.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 649
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 362 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Nitin Agnihotri & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ramanand Pandey (Addl. C.S.C.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

A. Service Law - Payment of Salary -
Concealment of material facts - U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board
Act,
1982:
Section
21;
Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 - A litigant who conceals
material facts from the Court, has to be
dealt with, has been gone through by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court time and again
and the consistent opinion is that he is not
entitled even to be heard on merits. (Para
6)

Appellants suppressed the material fact that the
order
dated
15.02.2021
passed
by
the