# Shanu Saxena & Anr v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 42213 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanu-saxena-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53138
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323,504,498-A & 506 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of -
Taking cognizance of inefficiencies in
execution
of
judicial
orders,
Superintendent
of
Police
directed
to
appear
in
person,
submit
personal
affidavit - In compliance of order, officer
present, filed compliance affidavit, fails to
provide explanation for dereliction of duty
- Court summoned Government Advocate
seeking
clarification
-
Furthermore,
deeper examination of matter brought to
light serious procedural impropriety -
Private Secretary to Government Advocate
found responsible for committing fraud
upon court by unlawfully altering first
page of affidavit, thereby misrepresenting
identity of individual who dictated its
contents - The act, reflects attempt to
mislead judicial process and exercise
functions
beyond
legally
conferred
authority - Assumption of powers by
administrative officer, without any legal
sanction, matter of grave concern - Purely
clerical, does not extend to making
substantive changes to official documents,
particularly those submitted before court
of law - Government Advocate granted
time
to
file
affidavit,
interim
order
extended till next date of listing. (Para 2
to 5, 8, 10 11)

Application pending. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Vijay Kushwaha & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Application U/s 482 No. 32395 of 2024

## Text

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view that the objections of the petitioner
were
dealt
with
by
the
respondent
authorities and the provisional attachment
was justified under Section 83 of the Act
for a period of one year. The said period
would only come to an end on July 7, 2025.
In the meantime, since show cause notice
has already been adjudicated upon and
order was passed under Section 74 of the
Act, the petitioner has the statutory
alternative remedy under the law to file an
appeal against the same.

10. We have also examined and
perused in great detail the order passed on
October 30, 2024 that is indicating the
reasons for provisional attachment and the
manner in which petitioner has avoided
paying the Goods and Service Tax dues to
the coffers of the Government.

11. In light of the same, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty granted to
the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 366
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2025

BEFORE

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

Application U/S 482. No. 42213 of 2024

Shanu Saxena & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anjeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323,504,498-A & 506 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of -
Taking cognizance of inefficiencies in
execution
of
judicial
orders,
Superintendent
of
Police
directed
to
appear
in
person,
submit
personal
affidavit - In compliance of order, officer
present, filed compliance affidavit, fails to
provide explanation for dereliction of duty
- Court summoned Government Advocate
seeking
clarification
-
Furthermore,
deeper examination of matter brought to
light serious procedural impropriety -
Private Secretary to Government Advocate
found responsible for committing fraud
upon court by unlawfully altering first
page of affidavit, thereby misrepresenting
identity of individual who dictated its
contents - The act, reflects attempt to
mislead judicial process and exercise
functions
beyond
legally
conferred
authority - Assumption of powers by
administrative officer, without any legal
sanction, matter of grave concern - Purely
clerical, does not extend to making
substantive changes to official documents,
particularly those submitted before court
of law - Government Advocate granted
time
to
file
affidavit,
interim
order
extended till next date of listing. (Para 2
to 5, 8, 10 11)

Application pending. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Vijay Kushwaha & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Application U/s 482 No. 32395 of 2024
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The persistent failure of police
officers to diligently fulfil their statutory
obligations, particularly in the prompt
service of summons and execution of
judicial directives, significantly impedes
the smooth functioning of the legal system.
Their apathy and inefficiency contribute to
2 All. Shanu Saxena & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
unwarranted
delays,
exacerbating
the
already staggering backlog of cases and
severely
hampering
the
expeditious
dispensation of justice. This dereliction of
duty not only prolongs legal proceedings,
subjecting litigants to undue hardship and
financial strain, but also erodes public
confidence in the efficacy and integrity of
the judicial process. When law enforcement
officers
neglect
their
fundamental
responsibilities,
they
inadvertently
perpetuate a cycle of inefficiency, causing
systemic stagnation that undermines the
rule of law. The judiciary, despite its best
efforts, cannot function effectively in
isolation;
it
relies
on
the
seamless
coordination
of
various
stakeholders,
including the police, to uphold the
principles of justice. The failure of the
police in this regard fosters a perception of
institutional indifference and inefficacy,
shaking the very foundation of public trust
in the justice delivery mechanism.

2. Taking cognizance of the glaring
inefficiencies in the execution of judicial
orders in view of order dated 16.01.2025
passed in the case of Vijay Kushwaha and
3 others v. State of U.P. and another1
this Court by order dated 31.01.2025
directed the Superintendent of Police to
appear in person and submit a personal
affidavit explaining the lapses that had led
to unwarranted delays.

3.
In
compliance
of
the
aforementioned order, Mr. Dhawal Jaiswal,
Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur is
present
before
this
Court.
He
files
compliance affidavit, which is taken on
record. However, the officer fails to
provide any substantial explanation or
justification for the dereliction of duty,
further exposing the systemic apathy within
law enforcement.

4. In light of unsatisfactory response
of the officer, this Court summoned the
learned Government Advocate Mr. A.K.
Sand, seeking clarification on the matter.
When questioned, the learned Government
Advocate assured the Court that a more
comprehensive
affidavit
would
be
submitted. However, it became evident that
neither the Superintendent of Police nor the
learned Government Advocate was aware
of the previous order dated 16.01.2025
passed in the case of Vijay Kushwaha
(supra), which was directly relevant to the
case at hand. This lack of awareness
resulted
in
an
inadequate
affidavit,
demonstrating not only negligence in
compliance but also a troubling disregard
for judicial directives, thereby further
eroding the credibility of the legal process.

5. Furthermore, when the learned
Government Advocate was summoned in
the present case, a deeper examination of
the matter brought to light a serious
procedural impropriety. It was revealed
that, in reality, the affidavit in question had
been dictated by the learned Government
Advocate
Mr.
A.K.
Sand
himself.
However, in a deliberate and misleading
attempt to obscure this fact, the first page
of the affidavit-where the name of the
individual responsible for dictating the
contents is typically recorded-had been
altered. This change was made at the behest
of Mr. Ghanshyam Kushwaha, Private
Secretary to the learned Government
Advocate, raising grave concerns about the
integrity and transparency of the affidavit
submission process. Such a manipulation of
official records not only reflected an
improper delegation of authority but also
highlighted
a
blatant
disregard
for
procedural propriety within the office of
the Government Advocate. This deliberate
alteration of official documents pointed to a
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
serious lapse in ethical responsibility,
undermining
the
sanctity
of
judicial
proceedings and calling into question the
credibility of the affidavits filed on behalf
of the State Government. The Court, upon
recognizing
this
misconduct,
was
compelled to consider whether such actions
amounted to an attempt to mislead the
judiciary, further exacerbating the concerns
regarding the inefficiencies and lack of
accountability within the system.

6. When the learned Government
Advocate was questioned regarding his
awareness of the judgment previously
passed in the case of Vijay Kushwaha
(supra), he stated that he had not been
informed
of
it
by
the
Additional
Government Advocate assigned to the
court.
This
response
underscored
a
troubling pattern of evasion and deflection
of responsibility within the office of the
Government
Advocate.
Rather
than
providing a credible justification for the
failure to comply with judicial directives,
he sought to shift the blame onto his
colleague,
demonstrating
a
clear
unwillingness to be held accountable for
lapses in duty. This habitual passing of
responsibility from one officer to another
not only exposes a lack of coordination and
diligence within the government's legal
apparatus but also reflects a deeper issue of
institutional apathy toward judicial orders.
Such
conduct
not
only
delays
the
administration of justice but also erodes
public trust in the state's ability to uphold
the rule of law, as officers entrusted with
legal responsibilities continually evade
accountability instead of addressing and
rectifying their shortcomings.

7. Furthermore, when the Court finally
asked the learned Government Advocate
whether he had read the judgment in the
present case, which already contained
references to the Vijay Kushwaha's case,
he admitted that he had not done so and
proceeded to apologize before the Court.
This revelation was deeply troubling, as it
highlighted that the affidavit had been
dictated without even a cursory reading of
the
relevant
judicial
orders.
Such
negligence raises serious concerns about
the competence and accountability of those
entrusted with representing the state in
legal matters. If the very individual
responsible for upholding the rule of law
exhibits such a lackadaisical attitude, it
casts a shadow over the credibility of the
state's legal apparatus and severely hampers
the judicial process. The role of the
Government Advocate is not merely
procedural but carries a duty to ensure that
legal proceedings are conducted with
diligence
and
adherence
to
judicial
precedent. However, when such a highranking officer demonstrates such disregard
for due process, it sets a dangerous
precedent for others aspiring to join the
legal system. It fosters a culture of
carelessness and unaccountability, eroding
the faith of litigants and the judiciary in the
state's ability to enforce the law effectively.
This incident, therefore, underscores the
urgent need for systemic reforms to instill
greater
responsibility,
scrutiny,
and
professionalism within the government's
legal framework.

8. The Private Secretary to the
Government Advocate, Mr. Ghanshyam
Kushwaha, has been found responsible for
committing fraud upon the court by
unlawfully altering the first page of the
affidavit,
thereby
misrepresenting
the
identity of the individual who had dictated
its contents. This act, though seemingly
minor, amounts to a serious impropriety, as
it reflects an attempt to mislead the judicial
2 All. Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P.
369
process and exercise functions beyond his
legally conferred authority. The assumption
of such powers by an administrative
officer, without any legal sanction, is a
matter of grave concern. The Court has
unequivocally disapproved of this conduct,
emphasizing that the role of a Private
Secretary is purely clerical and does not
extend to making substantive changes to
official
documents,
particularly
those
submitted before a court of law. Such
actions not only undermine the sanctity of
judicial proceedings but also raise serious
questions
about
the
functioning
and
accountability
of
the
Government
Advocate's office. This incident calls for
stringent corrective measures to ensure that
procedural integrity is maintained and that
unauthorized individuals do not interfere
with matters of legal significance.

9. The events that have unfolded
before this Court are both astonishing and
deeply disconcerting, revealing a flagrant
disregard
for
judicial
authority
and
procedural integrity. The sheer negligence
of responsible officials, coupled with
unwarranted
interference
in
legal
proceedings, strikes at the very foundation
of the justice system. Such egregious
misconduct is utterly indefensible and
demands
immediate,
uncompromising
corrective action to prevent any future
recurrence.

10. As prayed by learned Government
Advocate, time is granted to file better
affidavit. Put up this case on 12.03.2025, as
fresh,
for
further
hearing.
The
Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur shall
remain present before this Court, on the
next date.

11. Interim order, granted earlier, is
extended till the next date of listing.

12.
Registrar
(Compliance)
shall
communicate this order to Mr. A.K. Sand,
learned Government Advocate, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 369
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12654 of
2023

Jaswant Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vineet Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Bail - Second Bail
Application -Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 307, 286, 506 & 120-B- Delay
in Trial - Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Section 7- Applicability of Article 21 of the
Constitution -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Section 439-Constitution of India,
Article 21- Applicant accused of double
murder by firearm - Co-accused father
granted bail by Supreme Court on grounds
of advanced age - Applicant in custody
since 16.09.2018 - Seven out of twentythree prosecution witnesses examined -
All witnesses supported prosecution - No
undue delay attributable to prosecution -
Held, although prolonged incarceration
may justify bail in exceptional cases, each
bail application to be examined on its own
facts - When trial is progressing and
prosecution witnesses support case, no
ground made out for bail merely on
ground of co-accused's release or general
delay - Bail rejected. (Paras 14,16,17,
and 18)