# Tilakram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 49
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4464 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tilakram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52152
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 188 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - The Representative
of People Act,1951 -Sections 123 & 125Summoning
order
impugned-allegations
of
offering illegal gratification to the voters in
Panchayat
Elections
and
flouting
COVID
guidelines-sec. 195(1) (a) (i) mandates that no
court shall take cognizance of an offence u/s
188 IPC except on a written complaint by the
concerned public servant-absence of such
complaint invalidates the cognizance of the
offence-prosecution has failed to provide any
evidence-which is crucial evidence u/s 123 of
the Representation Act no prior criminal recordimpugned order and proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Tilakram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
49
appeal of the petitioner on the ground
of limitation, it must have been decided
on merits strictly in accordance with
law.

32. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances as
considered and discussed above, the
judgements of the Apex Court as
considered above as well as the relevant
statutory
provisions,
the
impugned
order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the
appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal
of the petitioner has been dismissed
being barred by the period of limitation
is unwarranted and uncalled for and is
hereby set aside.

33. However, the appeal No. 18 of
2023 (Sahara Prime City Limited vs.
CBT & others) is hereby remanded back
to the Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow to
pass a fresh order strictly in accordance
with law. While adjudicating/deciding the
aforesaid appeal of the petitioner on
merits, the Appellate Tribunal may not
influence from any observations of the
order of this Court inasmuch as this order
is only confined to the effect that the
appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on
the ground of being barred by the period
of limitation, therefore, the appellate
Tribunal shall decide the aforesaid appeal
on merits strictly in accordance with law
by affording an opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned with expedition. It
is needless to say that if the petitioner
files an application for interim relief
before the appellate Tribunal, the same
may
heard
and
disposed
of
with
expedition strictly in accordance with
law.

34. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed.

35. No order as to costs.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 49
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4464 of 2024

Tilakram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Upendra Prakash Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- 226 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
323, 354, 452 & 506 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 41-A: - Writ Petition -
for quashing of FIR - punishment for offences
mentioned in FIR is less than Seven Years - held
that looking to the gravity of punishment being
less than 7 years, the provisions of Section 41-A
of Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed - hence, writ
petition disposed of in same terms as law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar.
(Para - 5, 7)

Writ Petition disposed of. ( E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Arnesh Kumar Vs St of Bihar & anr. (2014 vol. 8
SCC 273.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered
as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 242 of 2024
under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Huzoorpur,
district Bahraich.

3. The punishment for the offences
mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less
than seven years.

4. In view of the order proposed to
be passed in this writ petition, issuance
of notice to the opposite party no. 4 is
dispensed with.

5. Learned Additional Government
Advocate looking to the gravity of
punishment being less than seven years
has stated that the provisions of Section
41-A Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed
in terms of judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a
case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273:
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
another.

6. The present petition deserves to
be disposed of in terms of the statement
made by learned A.G.A.

7. Accordingly, this petition is
disposed of in view of the provisions of
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid
down by Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar (supra).
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 50
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1252 of 2024

Ishrat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prashant Vikram Singh, Akshaya Pratap
Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 188 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - The Representative
of People Act,1951 -Sections 123 & 125Summoning
order
impugned-allegations
of
offering illegal gratification to the voters in
Panchayat
Elections
and
flouting
COVID
guidelines-sec. 195(1) (a) (i) mandates that no
court shall take cognizance of an offence u/s
188 IPC except on a written complaint by the
concerned public servant-absence of such
complaint invalidates the cognizance of the
offence-prosecution has failed to provide any
evidence-which is crucial evidence u/s 123 of
the Representation Act no prior criminal recordimpugned order and proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Fazil & ors Vs The State & ors. High Court of
Madras in the Case Crl. O. P. No. 21123 and Crl.
M. P. No. 8982 of 2020, Madras High Court

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1)SCC
335 (Para 108 AIR Cri LJ)

3. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. and another Vs Special
Judicial Magistrate and others: 1998 UPCrR 118

4. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383