# State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nepal Singh

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 547
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2001
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Shiv Shanker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-nepal-singh-40792
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act 1972-Section15-Criminal
Contempt-Forged
and
fabricate copy of F.I.R.-filed before High
Court-intentionally-for obtaining the bail
order-court found all the four ingredients
of crime-against the accused contemnerheld-the word firing in FIR deleted to
obtain
the
bail/order-amounts
to
criminal
contempt
and
concealing
material facts from this Court-liable to
be punished.

Held: Para 13 & 16

It is worthwhile to mention here that the
F.I.R. is an important document upon
which the whole prosecution case stands
if the role of firing of the accused is not
mention in the F.I.R. and subsequently
the role of accused is shown in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses
therefore, it can be deemed to be a
development of the case and in such
circumstances the benefit must to in
favour of the accused. It is further
worthwhile to mention that there are
four
ingredients
of
crime
firstly
intention, secondly preparation, thirdly
attempt and fourthly commission. In the
present case all the four ingredients are
available against the accused contemner.
Therefore, it is liable to be deemed that
the word of firing from the F.I.R. was
deleted from the copy of the F.I.R. in
order to obtain bail order from this Court
after deceiving and concealing the true
and real facts.

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case as mentioned above, we are
of the view that the contemnor has
deliberately filed incomplete copy of the
F.I.R. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.5756 of 2001, Mohan Lal vs. State of
U.P. by concealing the true and real facts
whereby
he
obstructed
in
the
administration of justice and is liable to
be punished for committing criminal
contempt under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of
this, the charge leveled against the
contemner is fully proved and he is liable
to be punished for the same.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC-3469
AIR 2003 SC-2723
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

## Text

1 All] State of U.P. V. Nepal Singh
547
facts and would have no application in the
present case.

7. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, in my view, the orders
impugned in this writ petition are liable to
be
quashed.
Accordingly,
this
writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 8.3.2001 and
16.5.2002 passed by the trial court as well
as the appellate court and the exparte
decree dated 1.5.1997 passed by the trial
court are all quashed. Original suit no.
729 of 1995 shall stand revived. Since the
suit is of the year 1995, it would be
desirable that the same be decided on
merits, as expeditiously as possible,
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI,J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER, J.

Criminal Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2001

State of Uttar Pradesh
...Appellant
Versus
Nepal Singh

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
Sri A.K. Tripathi
Sri Vijai Shanker Misra
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.K. Vaish
Sri Abhay Raj Singh

Contempt of Courts Act 1972-Section15-Criminal
Contempt-Forged
and
fabricate copy of F.I.R.-filed before High
Court-intentionally-for obtaining the bail
order-court found all the four ingredients
of crime-against the accused contemnerheld-the word firing in FIR deleted to
obtain
the
bail/order-amounts
to
criminal
contempt
and
concealing
material facts from this Court-liable to
be punished.

Held: Para 13 & 16

It is worthwhile to mention here that the
F.I.R. is an important document upon
which the whole prosecution case stands
if the role of firing of the accused is not
mention in the F.I.R. and subsequently
the role of accused is shown in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses
therefore, it can be deemed to be a
development of the case and in such
circumstances the benefit must to in
favour of the accused. It is further
worthwhile to mention that there are
four
ingredients
of
crime
firstly
intention, secondly preparation, thirdly
attempt and fourthly commission. In the
present case all the four ingredients are
available against the accused contemner.
Therefore, it is liable to be deemed that
the word of firing from the F.I.R. was
deleted from the copy of the F.I.R. in
order to obtain bail order from this Court
after deceiving and concealing the true
and real facts.

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case as mentioned above, we are
of the view that the contemnor has
deliberately filed incomplete copy of the
F.I.R. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.5756 of 2001, Mohan Lal vs. State of
U.P. by concealing the true and real facts
whereby
he
obstructed
in
the
administration of justice and is liable to
be punished for committing criminal
contempt under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of
this, the charge leveled against the
contemner is fully proved and he is liable
to be punished for the same.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC-3469
AIR 2003 SC-2723
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, J.)

1. This case was initiated upon a
show cause notice issued in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application NO. 5756 of 2001,
Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P., by this
Court against the contemner Nepal Singh
son of Ram Charan.

2. Brief facts, arising out of this
case, are that Chhotey Lal son of Jawahar
Lal lodged an F.I.R. on 13.2.1998 at
11.25
A.M.,
at
Police
Station
Bisharatganj, district Bareilly wherein it
was stated that his younger brother Net
Ram had kept the wife of Har Prasad,
who was murdered by his brother Mohan
Lal one year ago of the present
occurrence. Therefore, due to keeping the
wife of Har Prasad, Mohan Lal harboured
ill-will. On 12.12.1998, at about 7.30
P.M.,. Mohan Lal accused reached near
Net Ram, who was warning under a tree
at his house along with companion, his
nephew Prem Pal and others. Mohan Lal
and his companion surrounded Net Ram
who stood and run away towards his
house where Mohan Lal fired two shots
upon Net Ram in his court-yard and his
companions attacked him with sword. Net
Ram consequently died on the spot.
Whereafter Smt. Surajmukhi, wife of Net
Ram deceased, was taken towards the
jungle of the village. Thereafter the case
under sections 302/366IPC was registered
against the accused.

3.

During
the
course
of
investigation,
the
name
of
accused
Bhagwan Das was also come into light on
the basis of the criminal conspiracy. The
name of Nanhey was disclosed by the
prosecution witnesses in this occurrence.

4. Later on the bail application of
Nanhey son of Lakhan was allowed by
the Sessions Judge granting bail to him.
Thereafter bail application was moved by
Mohan Lal in the sessions court Bareilly
on the ground of parity but the same was
rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly
finding no case of parity. Thereafter bail
application of Mohan Lal was moved
before this Court wherein all the facts are
mentioned in the bail application. Copy of
the F.I.R. was also annexed and the
affidavit was sworn by contemner Nepal
Singh by filing his affidavit. At the time
of hearing the argument in the bail
application in this Court, learned A.G.A.
has pointed out that the copy of F.I.R.
(annexure-1) filed on behalf of accused in
support
of
the
bail
application
is
fabricated and incomplete copy of the
F.I.R.. There is no clear averment that
Mohan Lal accused made two fires in the
court-yard of the house of deceased which
portion of the F.I.R. has been left out
deliberately in
the
copy of F.I.R.
(annexure-1). Thereafter the following
order was passed by this Court after
rejecting the bail application of Mohan
Lal accused:-

"Let a notice be issued against him
fixing 13.4.2001 to show cause why he be
not punished for filing false affidavit
before the court.

List on 13.4.2001 as part-heard
before this court. Office is further
directed to keep the record of Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 5756 of 2001
in a sealed cover."

5. The objection alongwith the
affidavit of contemner was filed werein it
was stated that he was Pairokar on behalf
of accused Mohan Lal. He contacted the
local counsel Sri Raj Kumar Verma,
1 All] State of U.P. V. Nepal Singh
549
Advocate,
bareilly
was
doing
the
necessary Pairvi of the case. And some
time in the month of January, 2001, gave
him a sum of Rs.500/- for obtaining copy
of the F.I.R., copy of the post mortem
report of deceased besides other evidence
collected by he Investigating Officer in
connection with said criminal case, for the
purpose
of
preparing/moving
bail
application on behalf of said Mohan Lal.

6. Sri Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate
Bareilly obtained all the relevant papers in
connection with the case including the
copy of the F.I.R. in question dated
13.12.98 and moved a bail application on
behalf of Mohan Lal, accused in the court
of Magistrate which was rejected then and
before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly who
rejected the same on 23.2.2001.

7. Since he had no personal contact
or communication of his own with any
learned counsel ate Allahabad for the
purpose of moving a bail application on
behalf of Mohan Lal before this Court.
The relevant documents were given to Sri
A.B. Maurya, Advocate. Thereafter, bail
application no.5756 of 2001 was moved
by the said Advocate of this Court. The
original
and
written
copy
of
the
prosecution documents were still lying
with him and he has assured to produce
the same before this Court at the time of
hearing of the criminal contempt. He is an
illiterate and uneducated person and even
cannot write his name. Sri A.B. Maurya,
Advocate prepared and moved the bail
application of Mohan Lal accused before
this Court on the basis of the said hand
written
copies
of
the
prosecution
documents which were obtained by Raj
Kumar Verma, Advocate, Bareilly. He
had only put the thumb marks upon the
affidavits and other blank papers. It is
further stated that Photostat copy of the
F.I.R. available in the record of the case
of Mohan Lal before the court below was
not visible and, therefore, some part of the
F.I.R. was not left out deliberately by the
clerk of the above Advocate of the
Bareilly. The possibility of inadvertence
and unintentional copying/writing mistake
having taken place on the part of Sri Raj
Kumar Verma, Advocate while copying
the
said
prosecution
documents
particularly the F.I.R. dated 13.12.1998,
can also not be ruled out. In these
circumstances, he has not committed any
criminal contempt. The only fault of the
contemner is that he applied for some
documents including the copy of F.I.R.
which were obtained from Sri Raj Kumar
Verma
without
ascertaining
its
genuineness, correctness and authenticity.
It is stated that had the deponant been an
educated person, he would have definitely
checked and verified the genuiness of the
said prosecution documents and as such in
any view of the matter the contemnor
cannot be said to have deliberately filed
the incomplete copy of the F.I.R. date
13.12.1998 but he regrets for the same
and tenders unconditional apology before
this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that he
may be exonerated of the charge dated
9.5.2005 framed against him by this Court
for deliberately filing of the incomplete
copy of the F.I.R. in connection with bail
application and the contempt proceedings
may also be dropped.

8. The contemner was charged by a
division Bench of this Court on 9.5.2005
in the following manner:-

"why you Nepal Singh, son of Ram
Charan residence of village Dhanaiti
Kharagpur,
Police
Station
Aliganj,
District Bareilly be not punished for
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
having committed criminal contempt of
this
Court
for
deliberately
filing
incomplete copy of the F.I.R. along with
affidavit in Misc. Bail Application No.
5756 of 2001, Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P.
before this Court."

9. Charge was accordingly translated
in Hindi and read over to the contemnor
who is allowed three weeks time to give
reply to the aforesaid charge.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have
been exchanged.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
contemner and learned A.G.A.. We have
also perused the whole record.

11. It is contended on behalf of the
contemner that he is illiterate and
uneducated person. He is also brother-inlaw of the accused Mohan Lal and,
therefore, he was doing the parvi of the
case on his behalf. He met Sri Raj Kumar
Verma, Advocate, Bareilly for doing the
parvi of the case on behalf of accused
Mohan Lal. He had also given necessary
expenses to Sri Raj Kumar Verma,
Advocate to obtain the copy of the F.I.R.
and other relevant papers for the purpose
of moving the bail application and for
obtaining relevant documents including
the copy of F.I.R. in question. Thereafter,
his bail application was moved which was
rejected by the Magistrate concerned.
Thereafter, the bail application was
moved
before
the
Sessions
Judge,
Bareilly,
which
was
also
rejected.
Thereafter, he reached at Allahabad and
met Sri A.B. Maurya, Advocate, High
Court, Allahabad on the recommendation
of Sri Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate,
Bareilly, all the necessary documents
including the copy of the F.I.R. were
handed over to Sri A.B. Maurya,
Advocate. Thereafter, he has obtained the
thumb impression upon several papers
and he could not understand as to what
was written in it, subsequently the portion
of firing by accused Mohan Lal was
deleted from the copy of the F.I.R.. It is
further contended that the copy of the
statements of the prosecution witnesses
had been filed along with the bail
application before this Court. If the
intention of the contemnor was to deceive
the Court in filing of the incomplete copy
of the F.I.R., the same portion would be
deleted from the statement of prosecution
witnesses meaning thereby the role of
firing made upon the deceased have been
mentioned in the statement of the
prosecution
witnesses.
In
these
circumstances, the deliberate deletion of
portion of firing upon the deceased by
Mohan Lal was not deliberate in the copy
of the F.I.R. by the contemner or by
anyone as the copy of the F.I.R. was
obtained by the Advocate of Bareilly from
the copy of the court and not from the
original F.I.R.. In these circumstances the
contemner is liable to be exonerated from
the said charge.

12. There is no dispute that the
affidavit of contemnor along with copy of
the F.I.R. was also filed in the above bail
application before this Court. There is no
dispute that the rule of the accused Mohan
Lal had been given in the F.I.R. of
making two fires upon the deceased. It
has been specifically mentioned in the
F.I.R. that the said Mohan Lal along with
his companion committed the murder of
deceased by causing injuries with their
respective weapons. The post mortem
report of the deceased reveals that on fire
arm injury was found on the thigh of the
deceased. After receiving such injuries
1 All] State of U.P. V. Nepal Singh
551
and falling down of the deceased, the
other accused inflicted sharp edged injury
on the deceased by which the accused
inflicted sharp edged injury on the
deceased by which the deceased sustained
eight incised wounds and one abraded
contusion.

13. It is worthwhile to mention here
that the F.I.R. is an important document
upon which the whole prosecution case
stands if the role of firing of the accused
is not mention in the F.I.R. and
subsequently the role of accused is shown
in the statement of the prosecution
witnesses therefore, it can be deemed to
be a development of the case and in such
circumstances the benefit must to in
favour of the accused. It is further
worthwhile to mention that there are four
ingredients of crime firstly intention,
secondly preparation, thirdly attempt and
fourthly commission. In the present case
all the four ingredients are available
against the accused contemner. Therefore,
it is liable to be deemed that the word of
firing from the F.I.R. was deleted from
the copy of the F.I.R. in order to obtain
bail order from this Court after deceiving
and concealing the true and real facts.

14. It is also important to note hear
that the affidavit was filed on behalf of
the contemner wherein no name of the
Advocate of Bareilly was mentioned and
no reason was disclosed. Thereafter, it in
the
counter
affidavit
the
name of
Advocate mentioned by the contemner
then the names of Advocate of Bareilly
has been disclosed in the reply. This all
reveals the malafidy intention of the
contemner to deceive the Court. In these
circumstances, there is no force in the
contention and in the reply that he did not
omit some portion of F.I.R. deliberately
or intentionally.

15. In the case of M.C. Mehata vs.
Union of India, AIR, 2003, SC, 3469 it
has held that if a false affidavit or
statement is filed, it amounts to criminal
contempt. More recently the Apex Court
has restated the same position in the case
of
U.P.
Residence
Employees
Cooperative House Building Society vs.
NOIDA reported in AIR, 2003, SC, 2723.
In the present case the contemnor filed a
false affidavits in order to obtain bail of
his relative accused Mohan Lal by
deceiving and concealing the real facts
before this Court in creating obstructions
in the administration of justice. In the
circumstance of the case, the above
pronouncement of the Apex Court is fully
applicable in the present case.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as mentioned
above, we are of the view that the
contemnor
has
deliberately
filed
incomplete copy of the F.I.R. in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.5756 of 2001,
Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P. by concealing
the true and real facts whereby he
obstructed in the administration of justice
and is liable to be punished for
committing
criminal
contempt
under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. In view of this, the charge leveled
against the contemner is fully proved and
he is liable to be punished for the same.

Let a notice be issued to the
contemner to address the Court on the
quantum
of
sentence
requiring
the
contemner to be present in Court in
person.
---------
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 885 of 1983

Swami Prasad

...Petitioner
Versus
The Additional District Judge, Hamirpur
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri U.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.S. Sharma
S.C.

Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act
1961-Section
13-A-Redeteremination-ivation of Surplus landland declared surplus-upheld by the
appellate
authority-thereafter
application
under
Section
13-A
on
pretext during consolidation operation
the area of land reduced-prescribed
authority can not sit order the appellate
authority-No
material
irregularly
disclosed-claim rightly rejected.

Held: Para 7 and 8

Thus prescribed authority cannot be
permitted to go into merits and into
validity of the order passed by appellate
authority in respect to the extent of land
which was declared as surplus. The
extent
of
land
which
was
declared/varied
either
by
appellate
authority himself or by this Court being
higher forum but in no case by the
prescribed authority.

The scope of correction as permitted the
prescribed
authority
under
referred
provision cannot be extended to the
extent to sit over the judgment of
appellate authority and if it can be so
then it can be further stretched to the
confirmed order of appellate authority
even
from
this
Court
which
if
is
permitted, then that may lead to a very
unhealthy situation. If there is some
apparent error or there is such error
which can be corrected in the forum of
review, in a final judgment given by a
court
on
merits,
then
it
has
to
reviewed/correct by that very court or in
the superior forum but in no case it can
be in a reverse gear. Interference and
variance by a lower court in a final
judgment given on merits by a higher
court, in law, cannot be corrected.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition,
challenge is to the judgment of appellate
authority and that of the prescribed
authority dated 14.10.82 and 11.6.1981
(Annexures 3 and 2) respectively.

2. Proceedings are under section 10
(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act). Pursuant to the notice
under section 10 (2) of the Act, objection
came
from
the
side
of
petitioner
challenging correctness of the statement
as appeared in the notice. After the
objection
and
evidence,
prescribed
authority by its order dated 23.6.1976
declared an area of 8.23 acres of land as
surplus, upon which the petitioner filed
appeal in which by the judgment of the
appellate
authority
dated
25.7.1977,
surplus area was reduced and an area of
4.37 acres was declared as surplus. The
petitioner came to this Court by filing writ
petition No.3564 of 1977 which was
allowed and the matter was remanded by
order of this Court dated 12.1.1979 for a
fresh decision by appellate court. After