# Tanmay Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 936
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-22
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 1213 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tanmay-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52343
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Applications u/s
482 - FIR - alleging that all accused have
formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance
of their common intention to demolish house of
complainant with a JCB machine and they were
threats and abused to the complainant also -
investigation - chargesheet was filed followed
by another charge-sheet - plea taken that - all
the applicants are government employees and
they are not concerned with alleged crime as
well as civil litigations which are pending
between rival parties before the revenue court -
court finds that, there is no denial on behalf of
the applicants that a demolition took place on
date of incident with the help of JCB which was
confiscated also - witnesses in their St.ment
have
named
respectively
the
names
of
applicants to be a part of unlawful assembly -
as well as there is no denial that police came on
call on dial 100 and a JCB was confiscated -
7 All. Tanmay Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
937
presence of applicants and other accused
persons are prima facie established - it is not a
case where a civil dispute is being given a
criminal colour since accused are not parties in
civil dispute - hence, there is a prima facie case
against them - consequently, applicant is
rejected and interim order passed therein are
vacated - trial court directed to proceed further
in accordance with law. (Para - 17, 18, 19, 22,
23)

Applications u/section - 482 is Dismissed.
(E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh
& ors.2023 SCC online 379.

## Text

936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contrary to the Scheme of Administration.
For the said reasons, the elections dated
10.9.2023 were invalid and contrary to law.

25.

Thus,
the
order
dated
14.9.2023 passed by the District Inspector
of
Schools,
Aligarh
recognizing
the
elections dated 10.9.2023 electing the
respondent no. 4 as Manager of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution is also contrary to law.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the
orders dated 29.3.2022, 30.3.2022 and
14.9.2023 are contrary to law and are,
hereby, quashed.

27. The matter is remanded back to the
Regional Level Committee, Aligarh Region,
Aligarh, i.e., respondent no. 2 to decide the
dispute regarding the rival elections set up by
the petitioners and respondent no. 4 and
referred to it by the District Inspector of
Schools,
Aligarh
by
his
letter
dated
15.12.2021 afresh in accordance with the
observations made above. Appropriate orders
shall be passed by the Regional Level
Committee and by the District Inspector of
Schools, Aligarh within a period of two
months from today and the Regional Joint
Director of Education, Aligarh Region,
Aligarh shall ensure that appropriate orders
are passed by the Regional Level Committee
and the District Inspector of Schools within
the time prescribed by this Court.

28. Till the decision of the Regional
Level Committee, the College shall be
managed by an Authorized Controller
appointed
by
the
Joint
Director
of
Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh.

29. With the aforesaid directions
and observations, the writ petitions are
allowed.

30. A copy of this order shall be sent
to the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh
Region,
Aligarh
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) within ten days for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 936
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 1213 of 2020
With
Application U/S 482 No. 18760 of 2022

Tanmay Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Himanshu Shekhar

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Applications u/s
482 - FIR - alleging that all accused have
formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance
of their common intention to demolish house of
complainant with a JCB machine and they were
threats and abused to the complainant also -
investigation - chargesheet was filed followed
by another charge-sheet - plea taken that - all
the applicants are government employees and
they are not concerned with alleged crime as
well as civil litigations which are pending
between rival parties before the revenue court -
court finds that, there is no denial on behalf of
the applicants that a demolition took place on
date of incident with the help of JCB which was
confiscated also - witnesses in their St.ment
have
named
respectively
the
names
of
applicants to be a part of unlawful assembly -
as well as there is no denial that police came on
call on dial 100 and a JCB was confiscated -
7 All. Tanmay Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
937
presence of applicants and other accused
persons are prima facie established - it is not a
case where a civil dispute is being given a
criminal colour since accused are not parties in
civil dispute - hence, there is a prima facie case
against them - consequently, applicant is
rejected and interim order passed therein are
vacated - trial court directed to proceed further
in accordance with law. (Para - 17, 18, 19, 22,
23)

Applications u/section - 482 is Dismissed.
(E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh
& ors.2023 SCC online 379.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Above referred both applications
are arising out of same charge sheet,
therefore, with consent of learned counsel
for parties, are being decided by a common
judgment.

2.

Applicant
Tanmay
Pandey
(Application No. 1213 of 2020) has
declared himself to be an employee of
Collectorate, Azamgarh, however, name of
post and designation has not been disclosed
in application or in any other material.
Surprisingly, the affidavit sworn in support
of application is of one Shiv Shankar
declaring himself to be a family friend
without disclosing that as to why applicant
himself has not sworn the affidavit. The
declaration made in last paragraph of
affidavit declares that contents of paragraph
of application were either true to personal
knowledge of deponent or on basis of
record or as informed by deponent. There is
no declaration that source of information of
deponent was the applicant. Therefore, on
face of it, affidavit is legally not duly sworn
and present application could be rejected
for
said
legal
error,
however,
still
considering that present application is
pending for last 4 years and applicant is
enjoying interim order as well as learned
Advocates
for
parties
have
placed
submission on fact and legal issues,
therefore, Court proceeds to decide the
same on merit.

3. Applicants Rajesh Kumar Maurya
and Shailesh Upadhyay (Application No.
18760 of 2022) have also declared
themselves to be government employees,
however, their designation or posts have
also not been disclosed either in the
application or in any other document. For
reference, relevant part of paragraph 28, 29
and 30 of affidavit are being quoted below
:-

"28. That the applicants till date
have failed to cull out exact reasons and
motive of informant in falsely implicating
him however he feels and has a guess that
since the parties were undergoing litigation
before the revenue Court in Collectorate,
Azamgarh and whereas the applicants are
an employee in Collectorate, Azamgarh,
it appears that the informant has falsely
implicated the applicants as accused in the
F.I.R. that has led to the impugned charge
sheet on his misplaced apprehension and
understanding that the applicants are
conniving with parties at litigation with
him and is helping them in the revenue
proceedings before the Revenue Court,
Azamgarh.

29. That at the cost of repetition it
is stated that the applicants have absolutely
got no concern with Gata No.196 or
structure standing thereon or with the
litigations in Revenue as well as Civil
Court in respect of the said property and
therefore
the
applicants
who
is
a
Government
Employee
have
been
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unnecessarily tagged in as accused by the
informant and have been thus subjected to
undue harassment and victimization.

30. That therefore any coercive
proceeding in view of impugned charge
sheet and consequent proceedings of the
court below sourced in F.I.R. which
proceeds on malice shall ruin the future of
applicants, particularly in view of the fact
that he is a Government Employee."

4. Above declaration on face of it,
appears to be false being not supported by
any document, therefore, this application
could be rejected only on above referred
legal error, however, since this application
is pending for last 2 years, and applicants
are enjoying interim order as well as rival
submissions have been placed, therefore,
Court proceeds to decide it also on merit.

5. These cases are arising out of an
FIR lodged by complainant Badri Prasad
Gupta against 8 named accused including
present applicants on 23.12.2016 at 20.25
Hours alleging that all accused have
formed an unlawful assembly and in
furtherance of their common intention to
demolish house of complainant, came at
place of occurrence at about 7.30 Hours
and demolished the house with help of a
JCB machine and when complainant and
others came, accused persons extended
threats and abused also. It was further
alleged that a call was made on Dial 100
and it was responded also and only
thereafter, the accused persons ran away
without taking the JCB, which was later on
confiscated
by
the
police.
During
investigation, statments of complainant and
others were recorded and finally a charge
sheet being No. 01 was filed on 14.08.2017
against 5 named accused including these
applicants. Another charge sheet was filed
against other accused viz., Ashutosh also.
Involvement of two other named accused
was found false.

6. The crux of argument of S/Sri
Rahul Mishra and Chandra Kumar Rai,
learned Advocates for applicants was that
applicant Tanmay Pandey who has declared
himself to be a government employee at
Collectorate, Azamgarh as well as other
two applicants Rajesh Kumar Maurya and
Shailesh Upadhyay, who have also declared
themselves to be government employees
are not concerend with alleged crime as
well as civil litigations between rival
parties are also pending before Revenue
Court.

7. Learned Advocates have submitted
that reason for their false implication
appears to be that some civil dispute was
pending before
Revenue Court
also,
therefore, in order to put pressure on
applicants and to provide favour.

8. Learned Advocates have also
submitted that involvement of some of
named accused were found false, therefore,
it appears that FIR was lodged with
exaggerated facts.

9. Learned Advocates have referred
contents of civil dispute pending between
complainant and other party for injunction
in regard to plot in question, however, no
injunction was granted.

10. Learned Advocates have also
referred that an application was moved by
one of named accused to recover the CCTV
footage
installed
around
place
of
occurrence, however, no finding was
recorded of the footage. CCTV footage are
also not on record. The I.O. has not taken
photographs of debris or demolished
structure. Statement of police officers who
7 All. Tanmay Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
939
came at the place of occurrence in response
to Dial 100 have also not been recorded
though some police officers are proposed
witnesses in the charge sheet. This Court
has earlier directed to place CCTV footage
on record, however, it was not complied
with.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well
as Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2 have supported the
outcome of investigation, that it was based
on statement of complainant and other
witnesses. They have also submitted that it
was a fair investigation since involvement
of some named accused was not found to
be true.

12. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.

13. In order to appreciate rival
submissions, contents of FIR, Majid Bayan,
statement of complainant, statement of
Smt.
Shipra
Baranawal,
wife
of
complainant and statement of Ambrish
Kumar who are cited as proposed witness
in charge sheet are reproduced below :-

"24.12.2016/ ब्य न ि दी- श्री बिी प्रस द
गुप्त पुत् जुगुि हकशोर हन० आहसकगांज पीएस कोति िी आजमगढ़
बदररय फत प्रथम सूचन ररपोटु क पूणु समथुन ि त ईद करते ि ए
बत रिे िै हक स िब हदन ांक 23.12.16 को सुबि समय 7.30
ए एम बजे र जेश कुम र मौयु स ० ि हफजपुर, आशुतोष कुम र
हद्विेदी हमशन कम्प उधड नरौिी र केश र म उफु बबिू प्र इमरी
अध्य पक स ० म तबरगांज सांजीि हसांि पुत् दशरथ हसांि स द कुमी
टोि र मकृष्ण हमश्र स ० ठण्डी सडक रहि हमश्र पुत् हजतेधि हमश्र
स ० बड देि तधमय प ण्डेय (कमुच री किेक्रेट) शैिेष उप ध्य य
स ० ि हफजपुर ने न ज यज मजम बन कर ि ठी हिए ि ए मेरे मक न
को जे०सी०बी० मशीन से हगर ने िगे हक मौके पर आिोक कुम र
ि अधय िोगो से सूचन हदय तो प्र थी मौके पर गय तो मन हकय
तो म ाँ बहिन को ग िी देते ि ए ज न से म रने की धमकी देते ि ए
म रने को दौड य प्र थी और आिोक पीछे िटकर अपनी ज न
बच यी प्र थी ने पुहिस नां० 100 पर सूचन हदय पुहिस मौके पर
आयी तब तक मुहल्जम न उपरोक्त पुहिस को देखकर ि ग गये मैने
मक न के पीछे हस्थत दो कमरे बर मद ब उधरी चबुतर दीि ि
जे०सी०बी० से तोडकर उपरोक्त मुहल्जम न हगर हदय गय थ
मुहल्जम न उपरोक्त के कृत्य से क फी आतांक क म िौि बन ि आ
िै पुहिस जे०सी०बी० मशीन को थ न कोति िी िे गयी मै और
अगि बगि िोग प्रय सरत िै मेर करीब तीन ि ख से उपर क
नुकस न िो गय अांत में इस घटन से ग्रस्त िोकर मैने थ न
कोति िी पर ज कर उक्त मुहल्जम न के हिरूद्ध प्र थहमकी दजु
कर यी इस प्रक र बय न अांहकत कर ये।

*************

14.09.17/ मजीद बय न ि दी- श्री बिी प्रस द
गुप्त पुत् जुगुि हकशोर हन० क हसमगांज पीएस कोति िी हजि
आजमगढ़ बदररय फत बत रिे िै हक जो एफआईआर मैने हिख यी
थी तथ जो बय न मैने हदय थ ििी बय न मेर िै अहियुक्त
आशुतोष कुम र हद्विेदी पुत् रहिधि कुम र द्विेदी हन० हमशन
कम्प उधड पीएस हसघ री हज० आजमगढ़ तथ र म कृष्ण हमश्र पुत्
ए०एम० हमश्र हन० डण्डी सडक पीएस कोति िी हजि आजमगढ़
क पूर पत यिी िै र केश कुम र उफु बबिू क पूर न म पत अिी
म िूम निीं िो प य िै मेरे मुकदमें मे घटन के चश्मदीद गि ि मेरी
पत्नी हशप्र बरनि ि पत्नी बदरी प्रस द गुप्त तथ मेर ि ई अम्बरीश
कुम र बरनि ि िी िै जो मौके पर पि चे थे। अगर आप च िे तो इन
िोगो क िी बय न िे सकते िै आिोक कुम र अब पुनः बय न देने
को मन कर रिे िै। यिी मेर बय न िै।

*************

15.10.17/ बय न गि ि- श्रीमती हशप्र बरनि ि
पत्नी श्री बिी प्रस द गुप्त हन० आहसकगांज पीएस कोति िी हज०
आजमगढ़ बदररय फत बत रिी िै हक हद० 23.12.16 को सुबि
घर पर थी हक तिी सूचन हमिी की मेरे रोडिेज ि िे मक न पर
कुछ बि ि िो रि िै मै तथ अम्बरीश तुरधत मौके पर पि चे तो
र जेश कुम र मौयु आशुतोष हद्विेदी र केस उफु बबिू सांजीि हसांि
रहि हमश्र तधमय प ण्डेय शैिेश उप ध्य य प्र हथुनी क मक न
जे०सी०बी० से हगर रिे थे िम िोगो के द्व र मन हकय गय तो
बहिन की िद्दी-2 ग िी हदये तथ ज न से म रने की धमकी हदये
तथ म रने के हिए दौड ये हकसी तरि िम िोग ज न बच कर ि गे।
यिी मेर बय न िै।

**************

बय न गि ि- श्री अम्बरीश कुम र पुत् स्ि० गुगुि
हकशोर गुप्त हन० आहसफगांज पीएस कोति िी हज० आजमगढ
बदररय फत बत रिे िै हक हद० 23.12.16 को समय 7.30
एएम पर मै घऱ पर थ हक तिी सूचन हमिी की रोडिेज ि िे
मक न पर कुछ िोग बि ि कर रिे िै तो मै अपने ि ई की पत्नी को
स थ िेकर तुरधत मौके पर पि च तो र जेश आशुतोष र केश उफु
बबिू सांजीि हसांि रहि हमश्र तधमय प ण्डेय शैिेष उप ध्य य िम
िोगो क मक न जेसीबी से हगर रिे थे तथ मन करने पर गधदी
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
गधदी ग िी हदये तथ ज न से म रने की धमकी हदये तथ म रने के
हिए दौड ए तो िम िोग हकसी तरि ज न बच कर ि गे।"

14. As referred above, contents of FIR
and statement of witneses are appeared to
have stated similar version of alleged
occurrence. Alleged occurrence took place
in public view and statement of some
independent witnesses were also recorded,
however, they have not named all accused
persons
though
have
submitted
that
demolition took place.

15. In order to quash any criminal
proceeding or charge sheet, Court has to
invoke inherent powers of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and to consider that whether on
basis
of
material
collected
during
investigation, either no case is made out or
on basis of material available, it could be a
case of absolutely false implication i.e.
criminal
proceeding
was
initiated
to
wrecking vengeance.

16. Learned Advocates for applicants
have assigned reasons for false implication
of applicants that they are government
employees and some ligitation are pending
in Revenue Court, therefore, they have
been falsely implicated in criminal case.
However, except details of one case i.e.
civil dispute, no other detail of case
pending before Revenue Court is placed on
record, except some reports, however, they
could not support the plea of false
implication. There is no valid reason for
their false implication, therefore, argument
of false implication is hereby rejected.

17. Now the Court proceeds to
consider whether on basis of evidence
collected during investigation, a prima
facie case is found against applicants or
not. It is consistent case of complainant that
a demolition took place on date of
occurrence with help of JCB machine
which was confiscated also. There is no
denial of it on behalf of applicants.
Witnesses in their respective statements
have named applicants to be a part of
unlawful
assembly.
Even
independent
witnesses though not named the accused
persons but have corroborated so much as
that demolition took place. Presence of
applicants and other accused are prima
facie established.

18. At the stage of cognizance of an
offence and to summon accused and others,
trial Court is not bound to look whether
there was any motive with applicants or
accused persons to commit offence. The
Court has to consider whether on basis of
evidence collected during investigation,
there is a prima facie case against
applicants or not and as referred above, on
basis
of
evidence
collected
during
investigation, there is a prima facie case
against them.

19. So far as collection of CCTV
footage is concerned, it may be a lacunae
on behalf of Investigating Officer but it
would not be sufficient to hold that no
occurrence took place or applicants were
not present since there is no denial that
police came on call on Dial 100 and a JCB
machine was confiscated from place of
occurrence. The Court has already rejected
submission of false implication in earlier
paragraphs. It is not a case where a civil
dispute is being given a criminal colour
since accused are not parties in civil
dispute. Complainant could not get any
benefit for making false implication of
applicants and others.

20. There is merit in argument of
learned AGA and learned counsel for
opposite party that a fair investigation was
7 All. Tanmay Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
941
conducted and involvement of some of
named accused in FIR were found false. At
this stage, to cause interference with a
legally
initiated
criminal
proceedings
would amount to cause it a sudden death as
well as at this stage, the Court cannot
conduct a mini trial.

21. Aforesaid observations would
have support from a judgment of Supreme
Court in Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Aryan Singh and others, 2023 SCC
Online SC 379 and its relevant paragraphs
are quoted below :-

"10. From the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,
the High Court was conducting a mini trial
and/or the High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or
quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial.
The High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not proved.
This
is
not
the
stage
where
the
prosecution/investigating
agency
is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges
are required to be proved during the trial on
the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating
agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially
erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the course
of the investigation against the accused, at
this stage. At the stage of discharge
and/or while exercising the powers under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a
very limited jurisdiction and is required
to consider "whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not".

11. One another reason pointed
by the High Court is that the initiation of
the criminal proceedings/proceedings is
malicious. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that the investigation was handed
over to the CBI pursuant to the directions
issued by the High Court. That thereafter,
on conclusion of the investigation, the
accused persons have been chargesheeted.
Therefore, the High Court has erred in
observing at this stage that the initiation of
the criminal proceedings/proceedings is
malicious.
Whether
the
criminal
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is
not required to be considered at this
stage. The same is required to be
considered at the conclusion of the trial.
In any case, at this stage, what is
required to be considered is a prima
facie case and the material collected
during the course of the investigation,
which warranted the accused to be tried.

12. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, when the High
Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in
quashing the entire criminal proceedings
and applying the law laid down by this
Court in catena of decisions on exercise of
the powers at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing the criminal proceedings, the
impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court quashing the
criminal proceedings against the accused is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside."

22. In aforesaid circumstances, this
Court does not find any ground to interfere
with
charge
sheet
dated
14.08.2017,
cognizance order dated 16.01.2019 as well
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as summoning order dated 18.11.2019,
therefore, these applications are rejected
and interim orders passed therein are
vacated.

23. Trial Court is directed to proceed
further in Case No. 843 of 2019 (State vs.
Rajesh Kumar Maurya and others) pending
before Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Azamgarh in accordance with law.

24. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 942
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 6293 of 2024

Complainant of Case Crime 1479/2017
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Niyaj Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 53-A)- Efforts
should be made to find out the truth- Right to
privacy is a part of the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 and that Article 20(3)
provides that nobody should be compelled to
give evidence against himself, however that the
said would not over-ride the search for the
truth, as the offence of rape is an offence
against the society at large and as the objective
of a Court proceeding is to find out the "truth".
(Para 8, 9 & 11)

Application dismissed. (E-15)

List of the Cases cited:-

1.K.K. Malik Vs St. of Har., 2011 SCC (3)
(Criminal) 61

2.Case No. Crl.A./73/2023 (Sudip Biswas @
Bura vs. The State of Assam and another)

3.Meera Devi & ors. Vs Jitender & ors. 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 4322

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P.
and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, , Advocate,
who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of
respondent No. 2 in the Court today, which
is taken on record.

2. By means of this application,
the applicant has sought the following main
relief:-

"Wherefore,
it
is
most
respectfully
prayed
that
this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the impugned
order dated 12.2.2024, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Bahraich, in Special Criminal Case
No.90
of
2018;
State
Versus
Waliuddin, arising out of Case
Crime No.1479 of 2017, under
sections-363, 366,376 (D) I.P.C.
and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act,
relating to Police Station- Hardi,
District- Bahraich, as contained in
Annexure no.2 to this petition, in
the interest of law and justice."

3. The facts, which are relevant for
disposal of this case, are to the effect that
an
FIR
was
lodged
against Ateek,
Kalimuddin
and
Khaisal
Nisha
on