# Shri Abhishek Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 1068
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-10
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7081 of 2021
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-abhishek-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48628
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 188 & 189
- When the First Information Report
definitely discloses the commission of
cognizable offences the writ petition does
not
warrant
any
interference.
Under
Section 188 and 189 Cr.P.C. the offences
alleged to have been committed beyond
the territory of India by an Indian citizen
could be investigated into and also tried in
India.

Held: Writ Petitions dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)06ILR A1068
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7081 of 2021
with Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7082 of 2021

Shri Abhishek Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Chopra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Azad Khan, Sri Ashish Deep Verma

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 188 & 189
- When the First Information Report
definitely discloses the commission of
cognizable offences the writ petition does
not
warrant
any
interference.
Under
Section 188 and 189 Cr.P.C. the offences
alleged to have been committed beyond
the territory of India by an Indian citizen
could be investigated into and also tried in
India.

Held: Writ Petitions dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335;

2. St. of Kerala & ors. O.C. Kuttan & ors. (1999)
2 SCC 651;

3. St. of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani &
ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779;

4. P. Chidambaram Vs Director of Enforcement
(2019) 9 SCC 24

5. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah. & ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 315

6. Thota Venkateshwarlu Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh through Principal Secretary & anr. 2011
(9) SCC 527

7. Om Hemrajani Vs St. of U.P. & ors. : 15 AIR
2005 SC 392
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. These writ petitions have been filed
with a prayer that the First Information
Report dated 14.4.2021 under sections 498A, 323, 506, 406, 342, 313, 351 I.P.C. and
sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act be
quashed. A further prayer has been made
that the petitioners in pursuance of the
aforesaid First Information Report be not
arrested.

2. For the decision of controversy, the
facts mentioned in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7081 of 2021 are being taken
into consideration.

3. A perusal of the First Information
Report shows that the respondent no.4 had
married the petitioner on 6.5.2011 at
Greater
Noida,
Uttar
Pradesh.
This
marriage was also got registered as per law.
It has been alleged in the First Information
Report that since the inception of the
marriage, the petitioner used to forcefully
take-away the salaries of respondent no.4
and in fact he had forced the respondent
no.4 to transfer almost Rs.2,00,000/- to
clear off his educational loans. He had
further forced the respondent no.4 to give
Rs.80,000/- to pay off some other loan. It
has been alleged that the petitioner
regularly used to transfer various amounts
from the accounts of respondent no.4 to his
accounts to pursue his higher studies in
BITS Pilani. Respondent no.4 has stated
6 All. Shri Abhishek Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1069
that the petitioner had forced her to leave
her job in India and to go to the USA on an
H4 visa and had made her to work in the
USA online despite the fact that the visa
did not permit her to do so. It has been
alleged in the First Information Report that
despite the fact that respondent no.4 desired
to pursue her higher studies in Pepperdine
University, the petitioner had restrained her
from studying. During their stay as husband
and wife in the USA, in June, 2016, the
respondent no.4 had got pregnant but
because of the fact that the petitioner had
pushed her, she had fallen-down and
resultantly a miscarriage had taken place.
Subsequently, in 2017, the respondent no.4
again
got
pregnant
but
during
the
pregnancy, it has been alleged, the
petitioner had never cared for her and,
therefore, from May 2017 to August 2017,
the respondent no.4 stayed in India. It has
been alleged that despite the fact that the
husband did not care for the respondent
no.4, she went back to USA to save her
marriage for the sake of her child which
she was bearing. It has also been stated that
despite requests from the in-laws that they
may return her Stridhan, the same was not
returned to her. Subsequently, when the
respondent no.4 had gone back to USA and
the child, was born, the petitioner, it has
been alleged, did not take care of the
respondent no.4 and did not even take any
paternity leave to take care of the child. On
top of that it has been alleged that the
parents of the petitioner also came to USA
and the respondent no.4 was required to
conduct the household chores. In June
2018, the opposite party no.4 flew down to
India once again with her son and in the
following July, the petitioner sent her a
notice for divorce. Thereafter, to save the
marriage she again flew back in August
2018 to enquire why all the cruelty was
being perpetrated. It has been alleged that
the petitioner had throughout been ignoring
the respondent no.4. In the USA the
petitioner had cancelled all the credit cards
which were there with the respondent no.4.
The respondent no. 4 and her son were
made to live in a state of penury without
any medical support. Despite the fact the
parents of the respondent no. 4 had sent
money, she was not allowed to pursue her
studies. At times, she was closed in the bath
room and was beaten. When the respondent
no.4 had desired the admission of the
young child in a day-care centre, the
petitioner had denied the same. It has been
alleged in the First Information Report that
when the respondent no.4 on 15.3.2019 had
fallen ill, she had to herself go to the
hospital and in the hospital when there was
no money with her, the emergency contact
people in USA suggested her that she
should go back to India. It has been alleged
that after that she came back to India where
she filed a complaint under the Domestic
Violence Act. It has been alleged that
behind the back of respondent no.4, the
petitioner had also filed a case for divorce.
When the respondent no.4 was in India, on
26.2.2021, two persons had come to the
house
of
respondent
no.4
and
had
threatened her and her parents to withdraw
the cases otherwise they would kill both,
the parents and the son of respondent no.4.

4. Challenging the instant First
Information Report, the learned counsel for
the petitioner Sri Prabhat Jauhar assisted by
Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava had argued
that despite the fact that respondent no.4
had got admission in the USA, she never
studied.
He
has
submitted
that
on
14.1.2016,
the
petitioner
had
also
purchased a house for the respondent no.4
in NOIDA from his own pocket. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that when
respondent
no.4
had
urged
for
the
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
admission of the child in a day-care centre
and when there was some dispute regarding
that, the respondent no.4 had approached
the US Police which had found that there
was no merit in the complaint. This had
happened on 15.3.2019 and the respondent
no.4 had come back to India on 19.3.2019.
Aggrieved by the actions of the respondent
no.4, the petitioner had sent a legal notice
through his attorney to respondent no.4 to
return the minor child and also he had
informed the respondent no.4 about the
contemplated divorce proceedings in the
USA. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also stated that after the divorce
petition was filed by the petitioner in USA
on 4.3.2021, the respondent no.4, as a
counter-blast to the filing of the divorce
case in the US Court, filed the instant First
Information Report on 14.4.2021. He
submits that the order for the custody of the
son was passed on 18.12.2020 and that was
also a reason for the F.I.R. In the meantime,
it is alleged that the petitioner had filed a
Habeas Corpus Petition for the custody of
the minor child before the Allahabad High
Court which was still pending. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also stated
that the respondent no.4 had filed a Special
Leave Petition against the order of issuance
of notice in the Habeas Corpus Petition and
the
Supreme
Court
had
also
tried
reconciliation but that had failed and,
therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition in the
High Court was to be heard. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
if the First Information Report is perused,
then it becomes abundantly clear that all
the incidents which had been complained
of had occurred in the USA and, therefore,
the respondent no.4 had no cause of action
in India. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also submitted that the ingredients of
Section 498A I.P.C. were also not present
in the First Information Report which was
lodged by the respondent no.4. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
cruelty of the husband or the relatives of
the husband should have been to the extent
that it would have driven the respondent
no.4 to a state when she would have
committed suicide. If that had not happened
then the cruelty should have caused a grave
injury or a danger to the life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) to the
respondent No.4. In the absence of the
necessary ingredients as were to be found
under section 498-A I.P.C., the First
Information Report was required to be
quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the respondent
no.4 had hardly stayed with her in-laws
and, therefore, it could not be said that they
had subjected her to any cruelty or torture.
In this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Ruchi Majoo vs.
Sanjeev Majoo : (2011) 6 SCC 479; Vipin
Jaiswal (A-1) vs. State of Andhra Pradesh :
(2013) 3 SCC 684; Virala Bharath Kumar
& Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. :
(2017)
9
SCC
413
and
Kamlesh
Ghanshyam Lohia & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra, Through the Commissioner of
Police & Ors. : (2019) 4 RCR (Cri.) 169
and has submitted that if the necessary
ingredients for constituting an offence
under section 498-A I.P.C. and other
accompanying sections were not present,
the First Information Report ought to be
quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further stated that the lodging of the F.I.R.
was an abuse of process of law and if it was
established that there was no cruelty then
the F.I.R. should be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a reply of the respondent
6 All. Shri Abhishek Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071
no. 4 of October 2019 which was sent to
the notice which the petitioner had sent
on 26.3.2019 and has stated that in the
reply the respondent no. 4 had stated that
if the petitioner filed a written apology
and took the responsibility of his wife
and son and provided a maintenance of
$2000 per month for the basic sustenance
and maintenance for his wife and son in
India then she was ready for a settlement.
He also relied upon that portion of the
reply wherein it had been stated that if
the petitioner came down to India and
took his wife and son to USA then the
respondent no. 4 was ready to condone
his cruelty and submitted that when she
was herself ready for rapprochement then
no question of cruelty etc. arose. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also stated
that for all the allegations which the
respondent no. 4 had made in the first
information report, namely, the fact that
the
petitioner
was
preventing
the
respondent no. 4 for pursuing her studies;
maltreatment at USA; the abortion which
had taken place in the year 2016; the
maltreatment at his hands after the child
was born and the maltreatment after the
petitioner's parents had gone to USA no
report to the Police in USA was made
and, therefore, the allegations made in the
first information report were baseless and
an abuse of the process of law. He further
stated that only to wreak vengeance and
with
malafide
intentions
the
first
information report was lodged. In this
regard, he relied upon a judgement of the
Supreme Court reported in 2019 (15)
SCC 357 (Rashmi Chopra vs. State of
U.P.) and has submitted that if the FIR
was a counter-blast to the divorce petition
which the petitioner had filed and if the
ingredients of the various sections under
which the FIR was filed were not fulfilled
then the FIR ought to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel further relied upon
a judgement of the Supreme Court reported
in 2009 (7) SCC 712 (Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia and others vs. State of Punjab
and others) and has submitted that if after
the investigation was concluded and yet a
charge sheet was filed against the accused
then the same ought be quashed. He also
submits that on the basis of what had been
said in the judgement reported in 2009 (7)
SCC 712 (supra) in paragraph 32 that if
from any particular fact of the case it was
found that the FIR had been made with an
ulterior motive to harass the accused then
the continuance of criminal proceedings
against the accused would amount to abuse
of the process of the court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argued that since most of the
offences had allegedly occurred in the USA
the petitioner could not be investigated
against and could not be tried in India as all
the evidence were available only in the
USA.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in the end submitted that there was a Look
Out Notice and there was also a nonbailable
warrant
issued
against
the
petitioner and if the High Court did not
protect the interest of the petitioner then the
petitioners
interest
would
be
greatly
jeopardized.

10. In reply, Sri Ashish Deep Verma
assisted by Sri Azad Khan learned counsel
appearing
for
respondent
no.4
has
submitted that if on the perusal of the First
Information Report, a cognizable offence
was disclosed, then in a writ petition, the
genuineness or the credibility of the
information would not be relevant. Learned
counsel for the respondent no.4 has relied
upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal &
Ors. : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of
Kerela & Ors. O.C. Kuttan & Ors. : (1999)
2 SCC 651; State of Telangana vs. Habib
Abdullah Jeelani & Ors. : (2017) 2 SCC
779; P. Chidambaram vs. Director of
Enforcement : (2019) 9 SCC 24 and
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. : 2021 SCC Online
SC 315 and has submitted that the High
Court
should
not
interfere
in
the
investigation which was to be done by the
State as that would result in miscarriage of
justice. From the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 has stated that the following principles
of law emerged, which are as follows :-

"From the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, right from the decision of the Privy
Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir
Ahmad (supra), the following principles of
law

i) Police has the statutory right and
duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report the
Court will not permit an investigation to go
on;

iv) The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, in
the ''rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare
cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
to be confused with the norm which has
been formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously by this
Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to
be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception and a rarity than an
ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however,
recognised to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section
482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and
the
police
are
complementary,
not
overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where
non-interference
would
result
in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers
of the Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not
an encyclopaedia which must disclose all
facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process
of
law.
During
or
after
investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the
6 All. Shri Abhishek Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073
application made by the complainant, the
investigating
officer
may
file
an
appropriate report/summary before the
learned
Magistrate
which
may
be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the
court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the
FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a
cognizable offence or not and the court has
to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR."

12.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 further states that even on
facts the petitioner could not be exonerated
of the charges of cruelty as he had though
purchased the property in question in the
name of his wife, he had yet to pay 40% of
the cost of it and because he had stopped
giving the various instalments the builder
was after the life of the respondent no. 4 to
pay
remaining
installments.
Learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 also
submitted that the offences which had been
alleged
against
the
petitioner
were
continuous in nature. The offences of
cruelty had started off right from the date
the couple had got married. The FIR was a
result of all that had happened in the past so
many years and, therefore, the petitioner
could not get away by saying that there was
no particular incident of cruelty.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 further submitted that
cruelty is a term which has a different
meaning for every individual. For arriving
at a conclusion as to whether there was
cruelty against a particular individual all
surrounding circumstances had to be
looked into. In the instant case, he submits
that the respondent no. 4 came from a very
well-to-do family and was a well educated
lady and, therefore, she expected a
treatment which was of a nature which
would go with her upbringing. He submits
that when proper treatment was not meted
out to her then it was definitely cruelty.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4
has also submitted that not only the
petitioner had filed the divorce petition in
the USA but he had also filed a divorce suit
in August 2019 in India (This fact has not
been controverted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner).

14. Learned counsel submitted that the
reply which the respondent no. 4 had sent
in October 2019 and the Email which she
had sent showed how disgruntled she was
with her situation and that she was in fact
being cruelly deprived of her maintenance.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 further submitted that
under Section 498-A of the IPC, the cruelty
had not only to be physical torture or
atrocity. There could be a mental and
emotional injury while physical injury was
not present, which was a latent form of
cruelty but was equally serious in the terms
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the provisions of statutes and this cruelty
would also embrace the attributes of cruelty
in terms of Section 498-A of the IPC.

16.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.4 also relied upon the
provisions of Section 188 and 189 of the
Cr.P.C. which are being reproduced here as
under:-

"188. Offence committed outside
India. When an offence is committed
outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on
the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen,
on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such
offence as if it had been committed at any
place within India at which he may be
found:

Provided
that,
notwithstanding
anything in any of the preceding sections of
this Chapter, no such offence shall be
inquired into or tried in India except with
the previous sanction of the Central
Government."

189. Receipt of evidence relating to
offences committed outside India. When
any
offence
alleged
to
have
been
committed in a territory outside India is
being inquired into or tried under the
provisions of section 188, the Central
Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that
copies of depositions made or exhibits
produced before a judicial officer in or for
that territory or before a diplomatic or
consular representative of India in or for
that territory shall be received as evidence
by the Court holding such inquiry or trial in
any case in which such Court might issue a
commission for taking evidence as to the
matters to which such depositions or
exhibits relate.

17. He submits that the petitioner
could be tried in India even for the offences
which he had committed in the USA. He
submits that for investigation, in fact, no
sanction of the Central Government was
also required. For this purpose, he relied
upon
2011
(9)
SCC
527
(Thota
Venkateshwarlu
vs.
State
of Andhra
Pradesh through Principal Secretary and
another). So far as the evidence was
concerned,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 submitted that under
Section 189 Cr.P.C. all the evidence could
be obtained by the investigating agency
even from the USA.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
no.
4
replying
to
the
arguments of the petitioner that a
protection was required from the High
Court because the look out notice had
been issued against the petitioner and that
a non-bailable warrant had been issued,
submitted
that
the
petitioner
had
throughout avoided investigation vis-avis the FIR which was lodged on
14.4.2021 and, therefore, no indulgence
be granted to the petitioner. He further
submits
that
if
the
offences
were
cognizable in nature the FIR could not be
quashed and, therefore, the prayer for a
protection could not be granted to the
petitioner.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4 thus submitted that the
case could very well be looked into by the
police as also by the Courts at Gautam
Budh Nagar under the provisions of
Section 188 Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Om
Hemrajani vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : AIR
2005 SC 392 and submitted that the offence
which were committed outside India could
be very much tried in India.
6 All. Jagriti Upbhogta Kalyan Parishad, M.P. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1075

20. Learned AGA Sri Arunendra
Kumar Singh also submitted that the FIR
could not be tinkered with lightly. He relied
upon the judgements of the Supreme Court
which had been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4.

21. Learned counsel for the State also
submitted that the offences alleged in the
FIR were of a continuing nature and they
could not be taken lightly. Still further,
learned AGA submitted that most of the
judgements which had been cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner were for
the quashing of the charge sheet.

22. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the Court finds from the perusal
of the First Information Report that there
are
allegations
which
reveal
the
commission of a cognizable offence.
Respondent No. 4 has alleged various kinds
of cruelties which had led her to various
illnesses. The respondent no. 4 had also
alleged that there was a miscarriage which
had resulted because of the fact that the
petitioner had pushed her. Still further the
Court finds that the respondent no. 4 was
being deprived of her financial resources
and that had driven her to come back to
India and in India also, the Court finds,
there was a threat made vis-a-vis the
respondent no. 4 and her parents on
26.2.2021 when two persons had reached
her house at 5.30 PM and had threatened
her with dire consequences. The arguments
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the FIR was a counter-blast to the notice for
divorce and that the FIR itself was a
malicious persecution of the petitioner do
not hold any water.

23. Under such circumstances, when
the First Information Report definitely
discloses the commission of cognizable
offences the writ petition does not warrant
any interference.

24. The Court also finds that under
Section 188 and 189 Cr.P.C. the offences
alleged to have been committed beyond the
territory of India by an Indian citizen could
be investigated into and also tried in India.

25. Both the writ petitions are,
accordingly, dismissed.

26. Dismissal of the Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 7081 of 2021 and
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7082 of
2021 would not in any manner come in the
way of the petitioner in availing the
remedies which might be available under
the Cr.P.C.
----------
(2022)06ILR A1075
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Company Petition No. 16 of 2019

Jagriti Upbhogta Kalyan Parishad, M.P. &
Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Ganguly, Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, Sri
B.B. Paul, Sri K.P. Singh, Sri K.R. Singh, Sri
Kunwar Bhadur Dixit, Sri N.C. Gupta, Sri R.C.
Srivastava,
Rachna
Srivastava,
Sri
Rajeev
Mishra, Rani Chhabra, Sri Sujeet Kumar, Sri U.N.
Khare, Sri Vikash Pathak, Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.A. Mehta, A.S.G.I., Sri Amit Mishr, Sri Anil
Katiyar, Sri B.N. Singh, C.S.C., Sri G.S. Hajela,
Sri Gyan Prakash, Sri Javed Husain Khan, Sri