# State of U.P v. Baiju & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 378(3) No. 69 of 2013
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Rajeev Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-baiju-ors-48009
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against
Acquittal - Scope - while exercising its
appellate
power,
the
High
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence and this exercise
is to be undertaken in order to come to an
independent conclusion and unless there
are substantial and compelling reasons or
very strong reasons to differ from the
findings of the trial court, the High Court,
as an appellate court in an appeal is not
supposed to substitute its findings in case
the findings recorded by the trial court are
equally plausible. (Para 11)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 154 & 162 -
Second F.I.R. - D.G.P., U.P. circular No.
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
DG21 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 - Two
F.I.R.s cannot be registered for the
same version - Director
General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh directed to ensure
that
in
future
no
multiple
First
Information
Reports
should
be
registered for commission of one crime
in different offences, except in cross
cases (Para 16)
C. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against
Acquittal - Informant along with Rakesh
Kumar came to police station carrying the
injured-Dinesh Kumar Sharma - In F.I.R.,
allegations were made against three to four
unknown persons - Dinesh Kumar Sharma
(injured) was in the condition to speak but
he did not tell the name of accused - On the
next
date,
informant
gave
another
complaint with a change version by naming
the accused/ respondents and assigning
their roles - P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their
deposition, stated that fire was opened by
Salik with close range, but no blackening
and tattooing were found - P.W.5, was the
witness of recovery memo of country made
pistol as well as arrest of the accused
persons, but he categorically denied the
prosecution case and also stated that no
weapon was recovered from him - Trial
court properly considered the prosecution
evidence
and
rightly
acquitted
the
accused/respondents (Para 10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Baiju & Ors.
243
desirable for the courts to filter out the
frivolous petitions and dismiss them with
costs as aforestated so that the message
goes in the right direction that petitions
filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the courts."

 (emphasis by Court)

12. In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar
Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC
655, their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
after considering the decisions in Ashok
Kumar Pandey (supra), Dr. B. Singh v.
Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC
363, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others,
(1998) 7 SCC 273, and Gurpal Singh v.
State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC
136, held:

"15. The above principles make it
clear that except for a writ of quo warranto,
public interest litigation is not maintainable
in service matters."

13. We have remarked earlier and we
do say again that this petition has not at all
been framed as one for a writ of quo
warranto and neither does it seek that
relief. It does not conform to the
requirements of that writ. It has been styled
and filed as a public interest litigation,
properly so called, with reliefs sought in
the nature of a certiorari (though without
saying so) and a mandamus or directions
akin to these writs.

14.

The
petitioner,
which
is
admittedly a trust, certainly does not have a
private cause of action against the sixth
respondent's selection as an Associate
Professor in the University. It has not been
able to establish what kind of a public
interest it seeks to espouse. This is quite
apart from the principle that we have just
noticed that in a service matter, a PIL just
does not lie.

15. For all these reasons, we do not
find any force in this petition and order it to
stand dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 243
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 378(3) No. 69 of 2013

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Baiju & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mrs. Smiti Sahai, Additional Government
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against
Acquittal - Scope - while exercising its
appellate
power,
the
High
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence and this exercise
is to be undertaken in order to come to an
independent conclusion and unless there
are substantial and compelling reasons or
very strong reasons to differ from the
findings of the trial court, the High Court,
as an appellate court in an appeal is not
supposed to substitute its findings in case
the findings recorded by the trial court are
equally plausible. (Para 11)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 154 & 162 -
Second F.I.R. - D.G.P., U.P. circular No.
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
DG21 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 - Two
F.I.R.s cannot be registered for the
same version - Director
General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh directed to ensure
that
in
future
no
multiple
First
Information
Reports
should
be
registered for commission of one crime
in different offences, except in cross
cases (Para 16)
C. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against
Acquittal - Informant along with Rakesh
Kumar came to police station carrying the
injured-Dinesh Kumar Sharma - In F.I.R.,
allegations were made against three to four
unknown persons - Dinesh Kumar Sharma
(injured) was in the condition to speak but
he did not tell the name of accused - On the
next
date,
informant
gave
another
complaint with a change version by naming
the accused/ respondents and assigning
their roles - P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their
deposition, stated that fire was opened by
Salik with close range, but no blackening
and tattooing were found - P.W.5, was the
witness of recovery memo of country made
pistol as well as arrest of the accused
persons, but he categorically denied the
prosecution case and also stated that no
weapon was recovered from him - Trial
court properly considered the prosecution
evidence
and
rightly
acquitted
the
accused/respondents (Para 10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh & ors. Vs St. of Har. reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 529

2. Anwar Ali & anr. Vs St. of H.P.h reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 166.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.)

1. We have heard Mrs. Smiti Sahai,
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State/appellant and have also
perused the record available before us.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., the State has
sought leave to appeal to assail the
judgment and order dated 24.05.2012
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.7,
District
Sitapur,
whereby the learned trial court has
acquitted the accused/respondents, namely,
Baiju, Salik, Chhailu and Sattan in the
instant appeal, for the offence under
Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 25 (1 B)
of Arms Act.

3. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has submitted that as per the
prosecution case, on 22.12.2005 at about
6:00 P.M., informant, namely, Nand Kishor
was going along with his brother, namely,
Dinesh Kumar Sharma by his motorcycle
to Gangapurwa (Ladilapur), Sugarcane
Centre. At the south of village- Shamipur
Godwa, three to four persons armed with
lathi, danda and country made pistol
stopped them and started beating with lathi
and danda. Brother of the informant,
namely, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, was having
licensee rifle No.AB-043636, when he
raised objection, then one of the accused
person opened fire and brother of the
informant received injury at the right side
of his chest under the arm. Thereafter,
accused persons snatched the rifle and
cartridges of the brother of the informant
and ran away. Informant saw all the
accused persons in the headlight of
motorcycle. On the aforesaid complaint,
First Information Report as Case Crime
No.281 of 2005, under Section 394 I.P.C.,
Police Station Thangaon, District Sitapur
was lodged on 22.12.2005 at 18:50 hours.
Inquest was conducted and witness of
inquest opined that deceased died due to
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Baiju & Ors.
245
firearm injury. On 23.12.2005, spot was
inspected by the Investigating Officer and
site plan was prepared.

4. On 23.12.2005, another application
was given by the informant with the change
of his version that in the haste, the name of
actual culprit was not given in the first
complaint
as
they
were
identified.
Informant has stated in his new complaint
that on 22.12.2005, Will deed was executed
by Triveni s/o Ram Awtar in favour of the
cousin brother of the informant, namely,
Ram Sumiran s/o Ram Prasad Sharma.
Ram Sumiran and his family members
were living with Triveni and after the death
of Triveni, on the basis of successor, his
property was mutated in the name of
Bhagauti. Therefore, on the basis of Will,
mutation case was pending before Tehsil.
About three years ago, Baiju s/o Awtar,
Sakeel and Chhailu s/o Baiju, purchased
the said land from Bhagauti by way of sale
deed. Sattan s/o Umrao was assisting Baiju
and Dinesh Kumar Sharma (brother of the
informant) and also helping Ram Sumiran,
as a result, accused/respondents were
inimical with him. Accused/respondents
were criminal in nature as few years back,
they snatched a rifle of Police personnel
and the case of said offence is pending. On
22.12.2005, in the evening, when the
informant was coming along with his
brother, namely, Dinesh Kumar Sharma by
his motorcycle-U.P. 34 D2214, as his
brother was having licensee refile and
informant was also armed with 12 bore
licensee gun. Motorcycle was being driven
by his brother and he was the pillion rider,
when they reached at the link road of
Rajapur, then accused persons suddenly
came out from Arhar field and started
abusing and Chhailu, one of the accused,
exhorted to kill them. At the same time,
Sattan gave lathi blow on the head of
Dinesh Kumar Sharma (brother of the
informant), then he fell down along with
informant and Salik opened fire upon
Dinesh Kumar Verma, due to which, he
received
grievous
injury.
When,
the
informant tried to escape, then Baiju gave a
blow of lathi, but he ran away to save his
life and also opened fire with his country
made pistol. Thereafter, recovery memo
was prepared by the Investigating Officer
and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
was also recorded. On 11.01.2006, accused
persons were arrested and on the pointing
out of Salik (one of the accused), country
made pistol was recovered along with
blank cartridges and recovery memo as
well as site plan were also prepared.

5. On the basis of recovery of country
made pistol on the pointing of Salik during
the course of investigation, a fresh First
Information Report was lodged as Case
Crime No.10 of 2006, under Section 25 (1B) Arms Act and all the articles including
country made pistol were sent to FSL for
examination.

6. After investigation, charge-sheet
was filed by the Investigating Officer in
both
the
cases
against
the
respondents/accused
for
the
aforesaid
offence and cognizance was taken in both
the cases by the Magistrate, and thereafter,
case was committed to the Court of
Session. Charges were framed in both the
cases, respondents pleaded not guilty and
requested for trial.

7. The prosecution has placed
fourteen witnesses, P.W.1-Nand Kishor,
P.W.2-Babu, P.W.3-Narayan Singh, P.W.4Ram Sumiran, P.W.5-Dubar, P.W.6-Lalit
Kumar, P.W.7-Brijesh Kumar, P.W.8-Suresh
Pal Singh (S.I.), P.W.-9 Dr. Khursheed
Alam Sidiqqui, P.W.-10 Manoj Kumar
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh (SO), P.W.11-Dr. M.K. Prajapati,
P.W.12-Pratap
Narayan
Singh
(S.I.),
P.W.13- Hari Babu Giri (Head Constable)
and P.W.14-Krishna Pal Singh (S.I.) and
twenty one documentary evidences, duly
proved by the prosecution witnesses.

8. After evidence of the prosecution,
statement of the accused person under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and they
denied their participation in the crime and
also stated that false recovery has been shown
and accused/respondents were implicated on
the behest of Ram Sumiran. As the informant
is the brother of deceased and accused
persons purchased the property of Bhagauti,
who is the legal heirs of the property of
Triveni and mutation dispute was pending
since long in between Ram Sumiran and
accused/respondents. Salik, (one of the
accused) also stated in his statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is being the
son of Baiju and he was taken into custody
and thumb impression was also taken on the
blank paper.

9. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has submitted P.W.1-Nand Kishor,
in his deposition, stated that Salik opened fire
on Dinesh Kumar Sharma (deceased) and
lathi blow was also given to the informant
and he supported the prosecution version.
The rest of the witnesses, P.W.2-Babu and
P.W.4-Ram Sumiran have also supported the
prosecution
version,
but
trial
Court
disbelieved their testimony as the deposition
of P.W.1-Nand Kishor, P.W.2-Babu and
P.W.5-Dubar are directly corroborating with
the antemortem injury of the deceased,
therefore, present appeal is filed and leave to
appeal is liable to be granted and appeal may
be admitted.

10. Considering the argument of
learned Additional Government Advocate
and impugned judgment, it is evident from
the record that on the written complaint of
Nand Kishor, which was scribed by Rakesh
Kumar s/o Awadh Ram Sharma r/o Sikari,
District Sitapur, First Information Report as
Case Crime No.281 of 2005, under Section
394 I.P.C, Police Station Thangaon, District
Sitapur was registered at G.D. No.30, dated
22.12.2005. In the aforesaid G.D., it is
mentioned that informant came to the
Police Station along with Rakesh Kumar by
his motorcycle carrying the injured-Dinesh
Kumar Sharma and in the First Information
Report, allegations were made against three
to four unknown persons. It is also evident
from the aforesaid G.D., in which, it is
mentioned that Dinesh Kumar Sharma
(injured) was in the condition to speak and
he told to the Police Officers that he is
having severe pain around the injury at his
chest, but he did not tell the name of
accused. As P.W.1, in his deposition, stated
that on his dictation, a complaint was
written by Rakesh Kumar s/o Awadh Ram
Sharma r/o Sikari, and thereafter, same was
read out by him, then he made signature
and given to the concerned Police Station
for lodging of the FIR, thereafter, FIR was
lodged. He also admitted that on the next
date, he had given another complaint with a
change
version
by
naming
the
accused/respondents and assigning their
roles. P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their deposition,
also stated that fire was opened by Salik
with close range, but no blackening and
tattooing were found. P.W.5-Dubar, who is
the witness of recovery memo of country
made pistol as well as arrest of the accused
persons, but he categorically denied the
prosecution case and also stated that no
weapon was recovered from him, therefore,
recovery of weapon is suspicious and trial
court has rightly considered the prosecution
evidence
and
acquitted
the
accused/
respondents.
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Baiju & Ors.
247

11. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while exercising its
appellate power, the High Court is
empowered to reappreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence and this exercise is
to be undertaken in order to come to an
independent conclusion and unless there
are substantial and compelling reasons or
very strong reasons to differ from the
findings of the trial court, the High Court,
as an appellate court in an appeal is not
supposed to substitute its findings in case
the findings recorded by the trial court are
equally plausible. This view was taken by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as
Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10
SCC 166.

12. Thus, having considered the matter
in its totality and in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's
case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra),
we find that the learned trial court's findings
regarding acquittal of accused/respondents
herein are based on proper appreciation and
analysis of evidences available on record
which do not in any manner appear to be
improbable or perverse.

13. On the basis of forgoing
discussions, we are of the considered view
that the application for leave to appeal lacks
merit and deserves to be rejected and the
same is hereby rejected.

14. Since the application for leave to
appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does
not survive and the same stands dismissed.

15. As it is observed in the number of
cases that nowadays, Police Officials are
lodging multiple First Information Reports
for one incident relating to different
offences. In the present case, as per the
prosecution
version,
brother
of
the
informant, namely, Dinesh Kumar Sharma
was killed with firearm and on the basis of
written complaint given by informant,
namely, Nand Kishor, First Information
Report as Case Crime No.281 of 2005,
under Section 394 I.P.C., Police Station
Thangaon, District Sitapur was registered
on 22.12.2005, and thereafter, investigation
was going on and on 11.01.2006, arrest of
the accused persons have been shown and
recovery of country made pistol was also
shown on the pointing out of Salik
(accused). On the basis of arrest/recovery
memo, second First Information Report as
Case Crime No.10 of 2006, under Section
25 (1-B) Arms Act was registered on
11.01.2006. As arrest of the accused and
recovery of weapons were the part of
investigation of Case Crime No.281 of
2005 (supra), as due to lodging of the
second First Information Report for the
Arms Act, multiple cases have been
registered and separate case diary for
investigation of the second case was also
prepared and charge-sheet in both the cases
were filed before the Court concerned.
"Section 220 of Cr.P.C., specifies that in
one series of acts more than one offences
are committed by the some person, then he
may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for every such offence."

Earlier, act of the State was
deprecated for lodging of the multiple First
Information Report for commission of one
crime in different offences at the time of
deciding the Bail Application No.8741 of
2019 (Surendra @ Fanna vs. State of U.P.),
vide order dated 16.10.2019, and thereafter,
Director General of Police issued circular.
D.G. Circular No.44 of 2019, dated
28.09.2019, in which, a direction was
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued to all the Zonal Additional Director
General of Police as well as I.G./D.I.G. to
ensure that no second First Information
Report should be lodged in relation to
commission of offence at one point of time,
except in the cross case. Thus, D.G.
Circular No.21 of 2016, dated 26.04.2016
and D.G. Circular No.44 of 2019, dated
28.09.2019 are being reproduced as under:-

" Circular No. DG21 of 2016

fiz; egksn;]

tSlk fd vki voxr gSa fd dbZ ckj
,d gh ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa i{kdkjksa }kjk ,d ls
vf/kd FIR ntZ djk;h tkrh gSA lkekU;r% ;g
FIR cros case ds :i esa ntZ gksrh gS ftlesa izFke
FIR ds eqfYteksa }kjk ,d gh ?kVuk ds vius
version dks n'kkZ;k tkrk gSA dHkh&dHkh ,d gh
i{k
ds
vyx&vyx
O;fDr;ksa
}kjk
Hkh
vyx&vyx FIR ntZ djk;h tkrh gS ftlesa
?kVuk ,d gksrs gq, Hkh vU; rF;ksa esa fHkUUkrk gks
ldrh gSA ,slk Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd fdlh ?kVuk
eas izFkEk FIR iqfyl }kjk ntZ djus ds ckn ?kVuk
ds lEcU/k esa i{kdkjksa }kjk vius vius fglkc ls
mlh ?kVuk ds lEca/k esa iqu% FIR ntZ djk;h
x;hA blh izdkj Multiple FIRs dbZ ckj
?kVuk LFky ls fHkUu Fkkus ij vFkok /kkjk 1561⁄431⁄2
Cr.P.C. ds vUrxZr ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds ek/;e
ls Hkh ntZ djk;h tkrh gSaA lkkekU;r% bu
Multiple FIRs dks A.B.C. bR;kfn ij ntZ
fd;k tkrk gS ijUrq dbZ ckj vyx vyx vijk/k
la[;k ij Hkh ntZ fd;k tkrk gSA ,slh Multiple
FIRs tks fd ,d gh ?kVuk ls lEcaf/kr gSa] dh
foospuk esa foHkkx }kjk fo'ks"k lko/kkuh u cjrus
ls i{kdkj vius vius fgrksa ds fy;s ek0 U;k;ky;
dh 'kj.k ysrs gSa ftlls vuko';d ijs'kkfu;kW
mRiUUk gksrh gsA ,sls leLr izdj.k ftuesa ,d ls
vf/kd FIR ntZ dh x;h gksa] dh foospuk ds
lEca/k esa fuEu funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa ftudk
vuqikyu lHkh lacaf/kr }kjk lqfuf'pr fd;k
tk;%&

1- ;g ijh{k.k dj fy;k tk; fd ntZ
gqbZ iz'uxr leLr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,d gh
?kVukdze ls lEcfU/kr gS vFkok ugh\

2- ;fn ,slh lHkh FIRs ,d gh
izdj.k ls lacaf/kr gS] rks bu lHkh FIRs dh
foospuk ,d gh vuqHkoh] ;ksX; ,oa n{k foospd dks
vkoafVr dh tk;A ;fn la[;k T;knk gks rks ,d
eq[; foospd ds usr`Ro esa Vhe xfBr dj leLr
foospuk,a blh Vhe dks vkoafVr dh tk,aA

3- ;fn fdlh izdj.k esa Cross FIRs
ntZ djk;h x;h gS rks ,slh lHkh Cross FIRs
dh foospuk ,d gh foospd ls djk;ha tk,A ;fn
buesa ls ,d FIR esa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV dh
/kkjk yxh gS vkSj 'ks"k esa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV
dh /kkjk u yxh gks rks ,slh leLr Cross FIRs
dh foospuk ,d gh iqfyl mik/kh{kd }kjk dh
tk, rkfd fojks/kkHkkl mRiUu u gksA

bl lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; mPPkre~
U;k;ky; }kjk Upkar Singh Vs Ved
Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 292 esa
fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk m)j.k vkids ekxZn'kZu gsrq
fuEukafdr gS%&

"However, this rule will not apply
to a counter claim by the accused in the
first complaint or on his behalf alleging a
different version of the said incident. Thus
in case, there are rival versions in respect
of the same episode, the Investigating
Agency would take the same on two
different FIRs and investigation can be
carried under both of them by the same
investigating agency and thus, filing an FIR
pertaining to a counter claim in respect of
the same incident having a different version
of events, is permissible."

4- ;fn izdj.k esa Multiple FIRs nTkZ
gS ijUrq Cross FIRs ntZ ugh gS] rks ckn esa ntZ
leLr FIRs dks 162 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 ds vUrxZr
dk;Zokgh ekurs gq, izFke FIR dh foospuk esa
lfEefyr fd;k tk,A ,slh lHkh FIRs ds lEcU/k esa
,d gh dsl Mk;jh fdrk dh tk, ftlesa lHkh FIRs
ds RkF;ksa dk lekos'k djds foospuk dh tk,A

bl lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre~ U;k;ky;
}kjk T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
(2001) 6 SCC 181 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk m)j.k vkids
ekxZn'kZu gsrq fuEukafdr gS%&
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Baiju & Ors.
249

"This court dealt with a case
wherein in respect of the same cognizable
offence and same occurrence two FIRs had
been lodged and the court held that there
can be no second FIR and no fresh
investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or same occurrence
giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences. The investigating agency has to
proceed only on the information about
commission of a cognizable offence which
is first entered in the Police Station diary
by the Officer Incharge under Section 158
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter called the Cr.P.C.) and all
other subsequent information would be
covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. for the
reason that it is the duty
of the
Investigating
Officer
not
merely
to
investigate the cognizable offence report in
the FIR but also other connected offences
found to have committed in the course of
the
same
transaction
or
the
same
occurrence and the Investigating Officer
has to file one ore more reports under
Section 173 Cr.P.C."

5- ,slh lHkh foospukvksa ds vfUre
fuLrkj.k ds lEca/k esa ;FkklaHko ,d lkFk fu.kZ; fy;k
tk;A ;g ik;k x;k gS fd dbZ ckj vyx vyx
fuLrkj.k djus ls foospukvksa esa folaxfr;kW ,oa
fojks/kkHkkl mRiUUk gksrs gSa tcfd ?kVuk ,d gh gSA ;g
lqfUkf'pr fd;k tk, fd foospuk esa folaxfr mRiUUk u
gksA

6- ;fn ,slh fdlh ,d foospuk esa /kkjk
1731⁄481⁄2 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr vfxze foospuk dk vkns'k
fdlh Hkh Lrj ls fd;k tkrk gS rks ;g vkns'k lHkh
foospukvksa ds fy;s Lor% ykxw gksxkA ,slk u djus dh
fLFkfr esa foospukvksa esa vkil esa fojks/kkHkkl mRiUu
gksuk LokHkkfod gSA

7- ;fn fdlh dkj.k ls fdlh ,d foospuk
dk LFkkukarj.k vijk/k 'kk[kk vFkok u;s foospd vFkok
fdlh vUos"k.k bdkbZ dks fd;k tkrk gS rks mDr
vkns'k mDr izdj.k ls lEcaf/kr lHkh foospukvksa ij
Lor% ykxw gksxkA

8- i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkjh dh ;g fo'ks"k
ftEesnkjh gksxh fd ,sls lHkh izdj.kksa esa mijksDr
funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsa rkfd vuko';d
eqdnesckth ls cpk tk ldsA

Hkonh;]

g0 viBuh;

26-4-16

1⁄4tkohn vgen1⁄2

leLr tksuy iqfyl egkfujh{kd@

leLr ifj{ks=h; iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd@

leLr ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd@iqfyl v/kh{kd]

,oa leLr foospuk bdkbZ izHkkjh]

mRRkj izns'kA

DG Circular No. 44 of 2019

fiz; egksn;]

vki lHkh voxr gS fd ,d gh le;]
LFkku o frfFk ij vkijkf/kd

?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa n0iz0la0 1973 dh
/kkjk 154 ds vUrxZr ,d gh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 iathd`r
fd;s tkus dk izkfo/kku gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa bl
eq[;ky; ds fuxZr ifji= Mhth&21@2016 }kjk
foLr`r fn'kk&funsZ'k fuxZr fd;s x;s gS] ftlesa ,d gh
?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa i{kdkjksa }kjk ,d ls vf/kd
,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ djk;h tkrh gS rc bu multiple
,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dh foospuk ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ ds ifji=
esa fn'kk&funsZ'k fuxZr fd;s x;s gSa] ftlesa ek0 loksZPPk
U;k;ky; }kjk midkj flag cuke osn izdk'k o vU;
1⁄420041⁄2 13 SCC 292 rFkk Vh0Vh0 ,UVksuh cuke
dsjy jkT; o vU; 1⁄42001) 6 SCC 181 esa ikfjr
fu.kZ; esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dk mYYks[k fd;k x;k gSA

laKku esa vk;k gS fd bl eq[;ky; }kjk
iwoZ eas fuxZr mDr ifji= eas fn;s x;s fn'kk&funsZ'kksa
dk dfri; tuinksa }kjk vuqikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk
gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn [k.MihB y[kuÅ
}kjk tekur la0&8741@2019 lqjsUnz mQZ QUUkk cuke
m0 iz0 jkT; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-09-2019 esa
,d gh ?kVuk dh 02 ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 iathd`r fd;s
tkus ij lquokbZ ds nkSjku fuEu funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSa%&

The present bail application has
been filed on behalf of applicant in Case
Crime No. 356 of 2018, under Sections
379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Tambaur, District
Sitapur with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that on the written complaint of
Shatrohan s/o Badri, Village Lauki Majra
Kurtahiya, P.S. Tambaur, District Sitapur,
the complaint was entered into the General
Diary No.27 at 14:12 hours on 08.12.2018
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at P.S. Rausa, District Sitapur and it was
alleged by the complainant that on
30.11.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. when he
went to ease himself outside his house, then
he found that his 2 Buffaloes valuation of
Rs.50,000/- were missing then search was
started alongwith his son and when
informant and his son reached at the
turning point of Mansab Kha Purwa then
they found that one person was going
alongwith his buffaloes the informant tried
to stop him then the accused person opened
fire on him. As the accused person was
identified by the son of informant as
Surendra Verma @ Fanna (applicant) and
thereafter, the son of the informant dialed
100 and the injured was brought to the
Health Center, Rausa by the police from
where he was referred to Trauma injured
was brought to the Health Center, Rausa by
the police from where he was referred to
Trauma
Center,
Lucknow
and
after
recovery the complaint was filed on
08.12.2018. On the basis of aforesaid
complaint, the Case Crime No. 329 of
2018, under Section 307 I.P.C. was
registered on 08.12.2018 at 14:12 hours at
P.S. Rausa, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant
further
submitted
that
the
aforesaid
complaint was again entered in General
Diary by the Station House Officer, P.S.
Tambaur, District Sitapur as General Diary
No. 34 on 08.12.2018 at 16:21 hours and it
was registered as F.I.R. No. 356 of 2018,
under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S.
Tambaur, District Sitapur on 08.12.2018 at
16:21 hours.

Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that two F.I.R.s of the
same complaint cannot be registered in
different police stations and he further
submitted that in F.I.R. No. 329 of 2018,
under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Rausa,
District Sitapur, the applicant has been
enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail
Application No. 5870 of 2019 vide order
dated 14.06.2019 and the photocopy of the
aforesaid order provided by the counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail
prayer to the applicant but fairly conceded
the fact that on the same complaint two
F.I.R.s have been lodged, one as F.I.R. No.
329 of 2018 (supra) and second as F.I.R.
No. 356 of 2018 (supra).

Further it is found that the
D.G.P., U.P. has issued circular No. DG21
of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 on the basis of
different reported incidents to the police
two F.I.R.s cannot be registered for the
same version and it is found that in the
present case there is a clear violation of the
aforesaid circular.

vr% vki lHkh dks iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k
tkrk gS fd bl eq[;ky; ls fuxZr ifji= la0
21@10 dk Hkyh&HkkWfr v/;;u dj vijk/k xksf"B;ksa esa
ppkZ djrs gq, v/khuLFkksa dks voxr djkrs gq;s mldk
iw.kZr;k% vuqikyu djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ;fn Hkfo";
esa laKku esa vkrk gS fd fdlh izdj.k esa fn;s x;s
fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk gS rks
lEcfU/kr ftyk iqfyl izHkkjh blds fy;s O;fDrxr
:i ls mRRkjnk;h gksxsaA

 Hkonh;]

 g0 viBuh;

 1⁄4vks0ih0 flag1⁄2

leLr ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd@iqfyl v/kh{kd
izHkkjh tuin

m0 iz0A

izfrfyfi& fuEufyf[kr dks d`i;k lwpukFkZ ,oa
vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrqA

1- leLr tksuy vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd
m0iz0A

2- leLr iqfyl egkfujh{kd@ miegkfujh{kd
ifj{ks= m0iz0A"

16. Director General of Police, Uttar
Pradesh is directed to ensure that in future
no multiple First Information Reports
should be registered for commission of one
crime in different offences, except in cross
12 All. Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
251
cases, failing which, the act of the
responsible officer would be contemptuous.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 251
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 7917 of 2022

Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Kapil Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India ,1950 - Article
226 - Contractual matter - Judicial review
- Scope - Decision making process of
Tender
Authority,
how
far
can
be
interfered with - Tata Cellular's case
relied upon - Principles of judicial review
would apply to the exercise of contractual
powers by government bodies in order to
prevent
arbitrariness
or
favoritism.
However, there are inherent limitations to
the exercise of the power of judicial
review - Held, tender authority, has been
given a certain degree of leverage by the
courts,
being
the
best
person
to
understand its requirements - Hence, a
mere disagreement with the decisionmaking process of the tender authority is
not a reason for a constitutional court to
interfere with the same. (Para 19 and 27)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Tata Cellular Vs U.O.I.; (1994) 6 SCC 651
2. Jagdish Mandal Vs St. of Orissa; (2007) 14
SCC 51
3. Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs U.O.I. &
ors.; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133
4. National High-Speed Rail Corp. Ltd. Vs
Montecarlo Ltd.; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 111
5. Central Coalfields Ltd. & anr. Vs SLL-SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) and other; (2016) 8
SCC 622
6. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Nagpur Metro
Rail Corp. Ltd. & anr.; (2016) 16 SCC 818
7. M/S. N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs M/S. Vinod Kumar
Jain & ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 127
(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.C. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunil
Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Shri Rakesh Vajpayee, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. The present writ petition has come
to be filed by the petitioner invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court, thereby
seeking two fold prayer; (i) quashing of
order dated 07.11.2022 uploaded on the
official website of the Department of
Animal
husbandry
on
09.11.2022,
whereby the bid
submitted by
the
petitioner has been declared as nonresponsive for the reason that the same did
not meet the requirement of clause 12(c)
of the RFP relating to the aspect of
submission of EMD and (ii) challenge to
the order dated 09.11.2022 has been also
made, whereby the tender summary report
was uploaded and the Department of
Animal Husbandry has fixed the date of
opening of financial bids on 10.11.2022 at
2:30 PM.