# Sarita Sharma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 308
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4411 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarita-sharma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51178
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
156(3)-
Applicant/victim moved application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. -dismissed-impugned-case of outraging
modestly of a woman and criminal intimidation
etc.- dismissed the application on the basis of
preliminary inquiry report submitted by the
police, in which no Statementof witnesses was
recorded-placing reliance on police report
submitted in favour of the proposed accused is
neither desirable nor lawful-impugned order set
aside.

Revision allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 308
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4411 of 2023

Sarita Sharma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri,
Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ram Rang Patel

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
156(3)-
Applicant/victim moved application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. -dismissed-impugned-case of outraging
modestly of a woman and criminal intimidation
etc.- dismissed the application on the basis of
preliminary inquiry report submitted by the
police, in which no Statementof witnesses was
recorded-placing reliance on police report
submitted in favour of the proposed accused is
neither desirable nor lawful-impugned order set
aside.

Revision allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. 'XYZ' Vs St. of M.P. & ors. reported in 2022
(0) SC 740

2. Priyanka Srivastava & anr.Vs St. of U.P. 2015
(6) SCC 287

3. Lalita Kumari Vs Government of U.P. (2014) 2
SCC 1

4. Kailash Vijayvargiya Vs Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri
5. Manju Surana Vs Sunil Arora & ors. reported
in (2018) 3 SCR 696

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Instant Criminal Revision has been
preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
against
the
impugned
order
dated
23.06.2023
passed
by
learned
Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal
Complaint Case No.849/12/2022, whereby
application
moved
by
the
applicant/revisionist under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. Heard Sri N.I.Jafri, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ali Jamal
Khan and Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Saghir
Ahmad learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma and learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondent and
perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the applicant who is the victim has moved
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
stating therein that the incident occurred on
24.06.2022 at 01:00 pm. When she moved
towards office after finishing her teaching
work in Civilian School run by Basic
Education Department, Kota in Block
Mursan,
District
Hathras,
suddenly
opposite party Laxmi Narayan Sharma who
was working as Head Master in Primary
School Nagla Mallu, Block Mursan,
District Hathras emerged there and asked
her to stop, when she reached in the
veranda of the school he abused her in
filthy language and asked for her husband
Jitendra Sharma in abusive language, then
she stopped her to abuse them, he again
abused her and acted in obscene manner
10 All. Sarita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
309
with her. He tried to grab her breast and
tried to molest her, which resulted in
outraging her modesty. On hearing her
shierks her husband Jitendra Sharma
reached on the spot and then the opposite
party escaped from there after threatening
him with life. The opposite party used to
threaten her every now and then, when she
happened to be on way to school. Her
report was not lodged at police station, she
reported the matter by registered post to
police, but no action was taken. She moved
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate concerned i.e. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

4. However, learned C.J.M.
placing reliance on preliminary inquiry
report filed by Station House Officer
concerned, dismissed the application with
observation that application had been
moved due to personal animosity of the
applicant and her husband with the
opposite party only with a view to exert
unnecessary
pressure
on
him.
No
cognizable offence is made out on the basis
of evidence on record. Feeling aggrieved
by the order the applicant/revisionist has
preferred the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the
revisionist submits that the impugned order
passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and
contrary to law. The impugned order is
based on conjectures and surmises and
wrong observation has been made by
learned
Magistrate
by
rejecting
the
application under Section 256(3) Cr.P.C.
that no cognizable offence is made out. In
fact it is clear case of outraging modestly of
a woman and criminal intimidation etc. is
also made out on the facts of the case, but
same has not been taken care of by learned
C.J.M.. No preliminary inquiry is called
for, where a sexual offence having been
alleged against the proposed accused.
Inspite of a cognizable offence is made out,
the learned C.J.M. has dismissed the
application on the basis of preliminary
inquiry report submitted by the police, in
which no statement of witnesses was
recorded.

6. Learned counsel for the
revisionist has placed reliance on a
judgment of Supreme Court in 'XYZ' Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
reported in 2022 (0) SC 740 and
observations made in paragraph Nos. 15,
16, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and
submitted that on the facts of the case a
cognizable offence in the nature of sexual
offence is made out, which has been
committed against a women. There is no
other option before the Magistrate but to
direct registration of an FIR, where an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
has been filed victim on her behalf, other
facts are not relevant at the stage of
registration of FIR, such as whether the
information falsely given, whether the
information
in
genuine,
whether
the
information is credible etc. These are the
issue that had to be verified during the
investigation of the FIR. In a nutshell
veracity of such type of allegations made
against the accused at this stage cannot be
gone by deciding the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Moreover if the
allegations are found to be false during
investigation the police is well within its
right to file a case of lodging false FIR and
given false information to the police.

7. Learned counsel for the
revisionist also submitted that where a clear
allegations of sexual violence are made
against the accused. No preliminary inquiry
is called for as this is not covered in the
cases cited in the Constitution Bench
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs.
State of U.P. 2015 (6) SCC 287 in that
case
the
borrower
had
moved
an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
with a prayer to lodged FIR against the
officials
who
had
initiated
recovery
proceedings against the complainant in
exercise
of
powers
under
Section
SARFAESI Act. The alleged offfence in
the present case is neither leads to
commercial
dispute
nor
matrimonial
discord.

8. Per contra, Sri Saghir Ahmad
learned Senior counsel for the respondent
No.2 submitted that Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of
U.P.
(supra)
has
laid down
certain
guidelines to avoid abuse of process of the
law by moving an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with malafide
intention and only to settle scores with a
person against whom he/she is having some
personal
animosity.
He
vehemently
contended that on one hand in the light of
Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Lalita
Kumari
Vs.
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 held it mandatory
for a police officer to lodge an FIR in
exercise of powers under Section 154 (1)
Cr.P.C. where the information discloses
commission of cognizable offence, on the
other
hand
the
Magistrate
having
jurisdiction
is
not
bound
to
direct
registration of the case and registration by
police in each and every case where a
cognizable offence is made out on the face
of the application, and Magistrate is
expected to apply his judicial mind towards
the allegations made in the application so
that abuse of judicial process could be
avoided. This reflects in judgment of
Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava
and another Vs. State of U.P. (supra) and
in Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Rajlakshmi
Chaudhuri that such power cannot be
exercised in routine manner. In the present
case learned C.J.M. has dismissed the
application 156(3) Cr.P.C. after directing a
preliminary inquiry by Station House
Officer concerned, in the preliminary report
the local police has given complete set of
facts which suggest that no such type of
occurrence as alleged, in fact has taken
pace and the application has abeen moved
with malafide intention to settle scores.

9. Learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on a judgment of Kailash
Vijayvargiya vs Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri
(supra) the paragraph Nos. 22, 23, 24,
27,28, 38 of said judgment are reproduced
as under:-

 22. One would grant that the
jurisdiction of the Court when asked to
invoke power under Section 156(3) is wider
as held in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), yet
there
are
limits
within
which
the
Magistrate must act. When the Magistrate
is satisfied that the allegations made
disclose commission of a cognizable
offence, he must stay his hands, direct
registration of an FIR and leave it to the
investigative agency to unearth the facts
and ascertain the truth of the allegations.
Magistrate in terms of the ratio in Lalita
Kumari (supra) can for good reasons direct
preliminary enquiry. We would now refer
to the power of the Magistrate to take
cognizance, postpone issue of process and
follow the procedure under Section 202 of
the Code.

 Difference in the power of Police
to register and investigate an FIR under
Section 154(1) read with 157 of the Code,
and the Magistrate's direction to register
an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code.
10 All. Sarita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
311
Power
of
the
Magistrate
to
direct
registration of an FIR under Section 156(3)
in contrast with post-cognizance stage
power under Section 202 of the Code.

 23. The operandi for registration
of information in a cognizable offence and
eventual investigation is not limited to
Police, and as observed above, sub-section
(3) to Section 156, subject to legal
stipulations, gives the ameliorating power
to a Magistrate empowered under Section
190 to order an investigation in a
cognizable offence. Two different powers
vested with two distinct authorities, namely
the Police and the Magistrate, who
discharge distinct functions and roles
under the Code as indicated above are not
entirely imbricating.

 24. The power of Magistrate to
direct investigation falls under two limbs of
the Code: one is pre-cognizance stage
under Section 156(3), and another on
cognizance
under
Chapter
XIV
('Conditions Requisite for Initiation of
Proceedings'; Sections 190-199) read with
Chapter XV ('Complaints to Magistrates';
Sections 200-210). These two powers are
different and there also lies a procedural
distinction between the two.

 27. In this Court in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) referred to the nature of
power exercised by the Magistrate under
Section 156(3) of the Code and after
referring to several earlier judgments held
that the direction for registration of an FIR
should not be issued in a routine manner.
The Magistrate is required to apply his
mind and exercise his discretion in a
judicious manner. If the Magistrate finds
that the allegations made before him
disclose commission of a cognizable
offence, he can forward the complaint to
the Police for investigation under Section
156 and thereby save valuable time of the
Magistrate from being wasted in inquiry as
it is primarily the duty of the Police to
investigate. However, the Magistrate also
has the power to take cognizance and take
recourse to procedure under Section 202 of
the Code and postpone the issue of process
where the Magistrate is yet to determine
existence of sufficient ground to proceed. In
a third category of cases, the Court may
not take cognizance or direct registration
of an FIR, but direct preliminary inquiry in
terms of the dictum in Lalita Kumari's case
(supra).

 28.
In
Priyanka
Srivastava
(supra), this Court highlighted abuse of the
criminal process by the unprincipled and
deviant litigants who do knock at the door
of the criminal court for malevolent
reasons. In the said case criminal action
was initiated by those against whom the
financial institutions had proceeded under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. This was
notwithstanding the protection given to the
officers under Section 32 of the aforesaid
Act against action taken in good faith.
Reiterating Lalita Kumari (supra), it was
observed that an action under Section
156(3) should not be entertained without
the complainant taking recourse to subsection (1) and (3) of Section 154 and
compliances of these two Sections should
be clearly spelt out in the application and
necessary documents filed. To check
malevolence and false assertions, the Court
directed that every petition/application
under Section 156(3) should be supported
by an affidavit so that the person making
an application should be conscious of it
and to see that no false allegation is made.
If the affidavit is found to be false, the
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant will be liable for prosecution
in accordance with the law. Vigilance is
specially required in cases pertaining to
fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence
cases, corruption cases, or cases where
there is abnormal delay/laches. Thus, the
Magistrate must be attentive and proceed
with perspicacity to examine the allegation
made and the nature of those allegations.
He should not issue directions without
proper application of mind which would be
contrary to the object and purpose of the
statute.

 38. We were informed that the
Magistrate, on remand, has passed an
order under Section 156(3) directing
registration of the FIR. He has misread the
order and directions given by the High
Court. In terms of the judgments of this
Court, the Magistrate is required to
examine, apply his judicious mind and then
exercise discretion whether or not to issue
directions under Section 156(3) or whether
he should take cognizance and follow the
procedure under Section 202. He can also
direct a preliminary inquiry by the Police
in terms of the law laid down by this Court
in Lalita Kumari (supra)."

10. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has also placed reliance in
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora and
others reported in (2018) 3 SCR 696 the
paragraph Nos. 33 and 51 are reads as
under:

 " 33. We have examined the rival
contentions and do find a divergence of
opinion, which ought to be settled by a
larger Bench. There is no doubt that even
at the stage of 156(3), while directing an
investigation,
there
has
to
be
an
application of mind by the Magistrate.
Thus, it may not be an acceptable
proposition to contend that there would be
some consequences to follow were the
Magistrate to act in a mechanical and
mindless manner. That cannot be the test.

 51. The matter is referred to a
larger Bench along with SLP (CRL.)
No.5838/2014 in terms of the judgment
passed today."

11. Learned Senior Counsel placed
before
this
Court
the
order
dated
16.04.2024 passed by Supreme Court in
Shamim
Khan
Vs.
Debashish
Chakrabarty and others which reveals that
the question which was referred to a larger
bench on 27.03.2018, as per the judgment
in "Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora and
Ors." (2018) 5 SCC 557 deserves an early
decision and for that reason, Hon'ble Apex
Court directed the Registry to place these
matters before the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders.

12.

In
Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government of U.P., decided in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008, vide
judgement dated 12.11.2013, Constitutional
Bench
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
concluded and issued directions as under:-

 "101) This can also be seen from
the fact that Section 151 of the Code allows
a police officer to arrest a person, even
before the commission of a cognizable
offence, in order to prevent the commission
of that offence, if it cannot be prevented
otherwise. Such preventive arrests can be
valid
for
24
hours.
However,
a
Maharashtra State amendment to Section
151 allows the custody of a person in that
State even for up to a period of 30 days
(with the order of the Judicial Magistrate)
10 All. Sarita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
313
even before a cognizable offence is
committed in order to prevent commission
of such offence. Thus, the arrest of a person
and registration of FIR are not directly
and/or irreversibly linked and they are
entirely different concepts operating under
entirely different parameters. On the other
hand, if a police officer misuses his power
of arrest, he can be tried and punished
under Section 166. "

13. Thus, from perusal of the
conclusion given by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Lalita Kumari (supra), it is obvious that the
scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence.
As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are: a)
Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b)
Commercial
offences
c)
Medical
negligence cases d) Corruption cases e)
Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches
in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting
the matter without satisfactorily explaining
the reasons for delay. However, the
Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that these are
only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

14. In Priyanka Srivastava and
another Vs. State of U.P. (supra) a
Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court
referred and placed reliance on a catena of
judgements on issue of scope, purport and
exercise of power available to a judicial
magistrate having jurisdiction in the case
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In said case,
the Hon'ble Court issued a caution to
Magisterial Courts that while exercising
powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate should ensure that the applicant
has not taken undue advantage in a criminal
court
to
settle
scores
while
filing
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Paragraph Nos.30 and 31 are relevant in
this regard and these are being reproduced
hereinunder:-

 ".......30.
In
our
considered
opinion, a stage has come in this country
where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications
are to be supported by an affidavit duly
sworn by the applicant who seeks the
invocation of the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate
case, the learned Magistrate would be well
advised to verify the truth and also can
verify the veracity of the allegations. This
affidavit can make the applicant more
responsible. We are compelled to say so as
such kind of applications are being filed in
a routine manner without taking any
responsibility whatsoever only to harass
certain persons. That apart, it becomes
more disturbing and alarming when one
tries to pick up people who are passing
orders under a statutory provision which
can be challenged under the framework of
said Act or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. But it cannot be done
to take undue advantage in a criminal court
as if somebody is determined to settle the
scores.

 .......31.
We
have
already
indicated that there has to be prior
applications under Section 154(1) and
154(3) while filing a petition under Section
156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly
spelt out in the application and necessary
documents to that effect shall be filed. The
warrant for giving a direction that an the
application under Section 156(3) be
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supported by an affidavit so that the person
making the application should be conscious
and also endeavour to see that no false
affidavit is made. It is because once an
affidavit is found to be false, he will be
liable for prosecution in accordance with
law. This will deter him to casually invoke
the authority of the Magistrate under
Section 156(3). That apart, we have
already stated that the veracity of the same
can also be verified by the learned
Magistrate, regard being had to the nature
of allegations of the case. We are
compelled to say so as a number of cases
pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial
dispute/family
disputes,
commercial
offences,
medical
negligence
cases,
corruption cases and the cases where there
is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in
Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart,
the learned Magistrate would also be
aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR. "

15. On a bare perusal of paragraph
No.31 of the judgement in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra), it is obvious that
Hon'ble Supreme Court has enable the
Magistrate on filing application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before him to take
steps to verify the nature of allegations of
the case and preliminary inquiry in the
cases
pertaining
to
fiscal
sphere,
matrimonial/family disputes, commercial
offences,
medical
negligence
cases,
corruption cases, or cases where there is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal prosecution have been permitted
as has been stated in Lalita Kumari
(supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed in Priyanka Srivastava (supra)
that the Magistrate has to remain vigilant
with regard to the allegations made and
the nature of allegations and not to issue
directions without proper application of
mind. He has also to bear in mind that
sending the matter would be conducive to
justice and then he may pass the requisite
order. The learned Magistrate should take
note of the allegations in entirety, the
date
of
incident
and
whether
any
cognizable case is remotely made out.
Issuing a direction stating "as per the
application" to lodge an FIR creates a
very unhealthy situation in the society
and also reflects the erroneous approach
of
the
learned
Magistrate.
It
also
encourages
the
unscrupulous
and
unprincipled litigants to take adventurous
steps with courts to bring the financial
institutions on their knees. Thus, on a
conjoint reading of Lalita Kumari (supra),
Priayanka Srivastava and Another vs.
State of UP and others (supra) cited on
behalf of the respondent and 'XYZ' vs.
State of MP and others (supra), it can be
discerned that in Priayanka Srivastava
(supra), Hon'ble Apex Court expressed
need
of
directing
a
preliminary
investigation by a magistrate while
dealing with an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., in the cases which are
enumerated
in
Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government of UP (supra) while lodging
the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In
cases
like
present
one,
in
which
informant
has
levelled
specific
allegations
of
sexual
assault
and
molestation
against
the
accused/respondent
No.2
directing
preliminary investigation to police into
allegations made by the victim in
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and placing reliance on police report
submitted in favour of the proposed
accused is neither desirable nor lawful.

16. The approach of learned
magistrate is not in consonance with the
recent pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
Court in 'XYZ' vs. State of MP and others
in year 2022. the impugned order passed by
learned trial court is found to be contrary to
law and deserves to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, present criminal
revision is allowed and the impugned order
dated 23.6.2023, passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal
Complaint Case No.849/12/2022, is hereby
set aside and the matter is remanded to
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras
to decide the same afresh after giving
opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/defacto complainant in the light of law
propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
discussed hereinabove.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 3561 of 2023

Siddharth Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner's candidature
for the position of Police Constable in
Uttar Pradesh was rejected by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Varanasi citing a
criminal case against him despite his
subsequent acquittal-The case pertains to
allegations u/s 498A,323,504,506 & 3⁄4
D.P. Act-this rejection was challenged -
Held, the court criticized the mechanical
approach of rejecting candidates based
solely on pending or resolved criminal
cases, especially in light of societal issues
such as false implications in section 498Athe court emphasized that trivial incidents
or social disputes should not permanently
disqualify
a
person
from
public
employment
if
they
demonstrate
otherwise clean antecedents-the court
quashed the order of rejection and issued
a
mandamus
directing
the
Deputy
Commissioner of Police to reconsider the
case within three weeks.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Commr. Of Police & ors.Vs Sandeep Kumar
(2011) 4 SCC 644

2. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2011) 14
SCC 709

3. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors.(2016) 8 SCC 471

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against
an
order
of
the
Deputy
Commissioner
of
Police,
Police
Headquarters,
Police
Commissionerate,
Varanasi dated 03.02.2023, rejecting the
petitioner's case for appointment as a
Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, on
account of a criminal case lodged against
him, of which he has been later on
acquitted.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition
would show that the petitioner staked his
claim for the post of a Police Constable in
the Uttar Pradesh Police. This was in the
recruitment year 2013. The petitioner was
selected for the post and the date for his
training was scheduled as 02.12.2015.
After the petitioner was selected, in the
Police Verification Report Form (PVR), he