# (U/s -482 Cr. P.C.) Vishweshwar Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 50
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-02
- **Case number:** CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.38158 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-s-482-cr-p-c-vishweshwar-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44517
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code-Section 499 IPC-
First, it must be established that matter
printed
and
offered
for
sale
was
defamatory; second, if proved, next it
must be examined whether the accused
committed such act with the requisite
intention or knowledge, etc. to make his
act culpable. (Para 22)

B. Indian Penal Code - Defamation - Once
trial court finds - that a news item printed
was defamatory- then whether the news
item was printed- knowingly that the same
would tarnish the image of the opposite
party or not - is a matter of evidence for
which a full-fledged trial is required to be
held for the same - Proceedings cannot be
nibbed in the bud by the High Court
exercising extraordinary power u/s 482
Cr.P.C (Para 21)

C.
Indian
Penal
Code-Defamation-If
news
item-printed
in
newspaperswithout making proper care/enquiry-
possibility that the same have been
published in order to bring down the
image of the opposite party cannot be
ruled out, completely. (Para 18)

D. Certain news item was printed, which
was found by the trial court to be
defamatory against the opposite party
no. 2, as two witnesses stated upon
reading the said piece of evidence, they
started viewing the opposite party no. 2
in poor light, considering that he was a
criminal.

Held:-It would be appropriate to have a fullfledged trial so as to gather the intention of
1 All. Vishweshwar Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
51
the accused, whether it was there to defame
the opposite party no. 2 in order to lower his
image in the estimation of the public and with
that motive the news item was printed or
whether it was simply a statement of fact.
Prayer for quashing the proceedings was
refused. (Para 23)

Application Rejected

List of cases cited

## Text

50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The high court would not
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to
be established by evidence or not.

12. The order has been passed by the
learned trial court by making a judicial inquiry
as provided under the Criminal Procedure
Code and after finding that the prima facie
case is being made out, the impugned order
has been passed. The applicant will have
occasion to put their point of view at the time
of framing of charge and at the time of
recording of the evidence.

13. On the basis of above
discussions, I do not find any good reason
for interfering in the impugned order. The
application has got no force and therefore,
it is liable to be dismissed.

14. The application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed accordingly.

15. The learned counsel for the
applicants has requested that some protection
may be given as the applicants have been
summoned in the complaint case.

16. It is directed that if within 30 days
from today, the applicants appear before the
court and file their bail application, the
same shall be disposed of expeditiously
preferably on the same day and for these 30
days no coercive measures shall be taken
against the applicants.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.38158 of 2012
(U/s -482 Cr. P.C.)
Vishweshwar Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Imran Ullah.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri N.L. Pandey, Sri Pankaj
Srivastava, Sri G.P. Singh.

A. Indian Penal Code-Section 499 IPC-
First, it must be established that matter
printed
and
offered
for
sale
was
defamatory; second, if proved, next it
must be examined whether the accused
committed such act with the requisite
intention or knowledge, etc. to make his
act culpable. (Para 22)

B. Indian Penal Code - Defamation - Once
trial court finds - that a news item printed
was defamatory- then whether the news
item was printed- knowingly that the same
would tarnish the image of the opposite
party or not - is a matter of evidence for
which a full-fledged trial is required to be
held for the same - Proceedings cannot be
nibbed in the bud by the High Court
exercising extraordinary power u/s 482
Cr.P.C (Para 21)

C.
Indian
Penal
Code-Defamation-If
news
item-printed
in
newspaperswithout making proper care/enquiry-
possibility that the same have been
published in order to bring down the
image of the opposite party cannot be
ruled out, completely. (Para 18)

D. Certain news item was printed, which
was found by the trial court to be
defamatory against the opposite party
no. 2, as two witnesses stated upon
reading the said piece of evidence, they
started viewing the opposite party no. 2
in poor light, considering that he was a
criminal.

Held:-It would be appropriate to have a fullfledged trial so as to gather the intention of
1 All. Vishweshwar Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
51
the accused, whether it was there to defame
the opposite party no. 2 in order to lower his
image in the estimation of the public and with
that motive the news item was printed or
whether it was simply a statement of fact.
Prayer for quashing the proceedings was
refused. (Para 23)

Application Rejected

List of cases cited

1. Md. Abdullah Khan v. Prakash K. (2018) 1
SCC 615 followed

2. K. Sitaram and Another v. CFL Capital
Financial Service Limited and Another (2017) 5
SCC 725

3. S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008)
5 SCC 662

4. Md. Abdullah Khan v. Prakash K. (2018) 1
SCC 615 (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh- I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant Shri Imran Ullah and in
opposition, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 Shri N.L. Pandey, learned
A.G.A. for the State Shri G.P. Singh and
perused the record.

2. This application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code')
has been moved on behalf of the applicant
with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in Complaint Case No. 583
of 2012 (Natthu Lal Yadav v. Pradhan
Sampadak and others), under Sections
500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'), Police
Station - Kotwali, District - Varanasi,
pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-II,
Varanasi.

3. In order to appreciate the
arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the applicant and the contentions made
in the affidavit filed on his behalf, it
would be pertinent to refer here in brief,
the complainant's case as narrated in the
complaint and the evidence which has
been
adduced
in
support
thereof.
According to the complaint, one Sessions
Trial No. 642 of 1999 was initiated
against
the
opposite
party
no.
2/complainant under Sections 302, 120B
of I.P.C., Police Station - Chowk, District
- Varanasi pertaining to Crime No. 10 of
1999, in which he was acquitted vide
judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 by
the Additional District Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 5. The Advisory Committee of
the National Security Agency (N.S.A.)
had communicated by FAX to the
opposite party no. 2 that his detention was
found to be against law and a direction
was issued for his immediate release.
Earlier, the District Magistrate had
cancelled the license of S.B.B.L. gun of
the opposite party no. 2, but subsequently,
a report was sent by Inspector, Kotwali
pertaining to Crime No. 10 of 1999 in
respect to the cancellation of gun license
of the opposite party no. 2 and after
consideration of the same, the District
Magistrate vide order dated 25.08.1999,
had cancelled his gun license, against
which an appeal was preferred by him
before the Commissioner, Varanasi under
Section 19 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
vide order dated 26.02.2001, the order of
District
Magistrate
was
confirmed,
against which the opposite party no. 2 had
preferred a writ petition No. 20298 of
2010 before the High Court, in which the
orders of the District Magistrate and the
Commissioner were set aside and the said
gun was released in favour of opposite
party no. 2 and his armed license gun was
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
renewed up to 2009 and was valid till
then. The accused-applicant along with
two other co-accused were fully aware of
these facts, but in order to assail his
dignity, at the instance of co-accused
(Sanjay Singh, Inspector, Police Station -
Kotwali,
District
-
Varanasi),
on
13.06.2007, untrue facts were published
in the newspapers, which were derogatory
to
the
opposite
party
no.
2
and
considerably dented his esteem in the eyes
of public and people started looking upon
him in adverse light and this also led to
the breakage of betrothal ('sagaai') of the
complainant's son and people started
avoiding to meet him so much so that it
became very difficult for him to move
around and live peacefully a dignified
life. This caused immense physical,
mental and financial loss to him.

4. The said complaint was registered as
Complaint Case No. 2025 of 2007 against
the applicant and two other co-accused and
on 25.06.2007, the statement of the opposite
party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200
of the Code, in which he narrated the same
version which has been stated above in the
complaint, further clarifying that all the three
accused, which included the applicant, in
conspiracy with each other, published news
item in 'Hindustan' and 'Amar Ujala' daily
newspapers on 13.06.2007. The local editors
of the said two daily newspapers were made
accused along with the S.I. Sanjay Singh
who were stated to have deliberately
published the said news item, which led to
the defamation of the opposite party no. 2
and therefore, it was mentioned that a sum of
Rs. 10 lacs should be directed to be paid by
the accused to compensate the opposite party
no. 2.

5. In support of the complaint, one
Manoj Kumar Srivastava was examined by
the opposite party no. 2 as P.W.1 under
Section 202 of the Code, who has stated that
he knew the opposite party no. 2 and had
read news item in 'Amar Ujala', Varanasi
edition dated 13.06.2007, carrying news item
pertaining to the opposite party no. 2, after
reading which, he received a big jolt that the
opposite party no. 2 was a man with criminal
antecedents, having case under Section 302
of I.P.C. and he was a history-sheeter. His
other friends were having the same kind
feeling towards him after having read the
news and started avoiding to meet him. The
other witness, namely, Kashi Seth was also
examined by the opposite party no. 2 as
P.W.2. He also has stated that he read the
Varanasi Edition of the 'Amar Ujala' daily
newspaper dated 13.06.2007 and came to
know about the opposite party no. 2 being a
history-sheeter and this led him not to have
confidence in the opposite party no. 2 as his
reputation had gone down badly. The
marriage of opposite party no. 2's son which
was likely to take place also had broken
because of the said news item having been
widely read by the general public.

6. Based on the said evidence, the
trial court passed the order dated
10.01.2008, wherein it was recorded that
the news item which was published by the
accused-applicant
was
nothing
but
publishing correct news and therefore, the
same would not fall in the category of any
offence. The accused being an editor of
the 'Amar Ujala' daily newspaper, had
published the said item only thinking that
the said news item was correct and it
would not appear to him that if the same
was published by him, it would bring
down the esteem of the opposite party no.
2 in the eyes of public. As regards the
third accused Sanjay Singh, Inspector,
Kotwali, the action taken by him fell
within the domain of his official duty in
1 All. Vishweshwar Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
53
respect of cancellation of arm's license of
opposite party no. 2. Merely on account
of opposite party no. 2 being acquitted, it
could not be said that accused no. 3 had
proceeded to take action for cancellation
of arms license in order to damage his
reputation. Accordingly, the trial court
dismissed the complaint under Section
203 of the Code. Against the said order, a
revision (Criminal Revision No. 09 of
2008) was preferred in which the Sessions
Judge, Varanasi vide judgment and order
dated 29.02.2008, set aside the order of
the learned Magistrate mentioned above
and remanded the matter back to the trial
court to decide the matter afresh after
hearing the counsel for the complainant
and considering the evidence on record.
While passing the said order, the learned
revisional court observed that although
the complainant had been acquitted in the
cases pending against him, getting benefit
of doubt, but in the publication dated
13.06.2007, it was written ^^fgLVah'khVj Hkh
ysdj ?kwe jgsa ykblsalh vlygk^^. The name of
the opposite party no. 2 was also
mentioned therein, therefore, it was not
appropriate for the newspaper to publish
such news without proper enquiry. The
opposite party no. 2 had been acquitted by
the
Additional
District
Judge
on
05.08.2002 and by the order of High
Court in Writ Petition No. 20298 of 2001,
the petition of opposite party no. 2 was
allowed and his arm's license was restored
in the year 2003. Thus, after 2003 till
2007, there was nothing against the
opposite party no. 2 which could be the
basis for publishing such news item that
he was a history-sheeter detenue of
"RASUKA"
(Rashtriya
Suraksha
Kanoon). Further, it is mentioned in the
said judgment that the publication of the
fact mentioned in the complaint could not
be said to be bona fide and the conclusion
drawn by the learned trial court that true
facts were published could not be said to
be in accordance with evidence on record
and
accordingly,
the
revision
was
allowed.

7. Thereafter, the trial court passed the
impugned order dated 09.07.2009, in which
it has been recorded that the revisional court,
while allowing the revision on 29.02.2008,
has directed it to pass fresh order on the basis
of evidence, after hearing the parties again.
The revisional court in its order while
drawing the conclusion, has mentioned that
the publication made in the newspapers did
not appear to have been published bona
fidely and hence, according to the conclusion
drawn by the revisional court, the accused
deserves to be summoned to face trial under
Section 500 of I.P.C. and accordingly,
summons were issued against the applicant
along with other two co-accused.

8. The main thrust of the argument
of the learned counsel for the applicant
was that the impugned order was totally
illegal because the same was not passed
on the appreciation of the evidence on
record by the learned Magistrate, rather it
has been passed in accordance with the
wishes/opinion formed by the revisional
court, which is wrong. The learned
Magistrate was directed to consider the
evidence afresh and after hearing the
parties, he should have passed fresh order,
expressing his own opinion as to whether
prima facie case under the relevant
sections were made out or not and it
should not have passed the order merely
because
the
revisional
court
had
expressed opinion that the said offence
was found to be made out.

9. Attention of this Court was also
drawn to the order of the District
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate, Varanasi dated 15.10.2007 at
page no. 85 of the paper book, in which
as many as four criminal cases are shown
to have been recorded against opposite
party no. 2 and it was also mentioned
therein that on the basis of police report,
showing those cases to have been
initiated against opposite party no. 2, was
held to be the basis for cancelling the
arm's license of the opposite party no. 2.
He was issued notice to show cause on
19.07.2007. In response to the said
notice, the opposite party no. 2 had filed
objection on 17.08.2007, stating therein
that the Crime No. 10 of 1999 was
registered against him because a widow
lady had received a bullet injury and
concerning that, proceedings were also
initiated against him under N.S.A. His
arm's license was also cancelled vide
order dated 25.08.1999, against which he
had preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, Varanasi Division, which
too was dismissed and thereafter, a writ
petition No. 20298 of 2001 was preferred
by the opposite party no. 2 and in the
said
petition,
vide
order
dated
14.05.2003,
the
orders
of
District
Magistrate and the Commissioner were
set aside and the arm's license of the
opposite party no. 2 was directed to be
restored and on that basis, the show
cause notice was taken back with
immediate effect and the gun was
directed to be restored to opposite party
no. 2. It was argued after having shown
the said order, that the said order was
passed
on
15.10.2007,
while
the
publication of news item was made on
13.06.2007, which was stated to be
derogatory and defamatory against the
opposite party no. 2. Therefore, it is
apparent that the accused-applicant did
not have any knowledge that any such
order was passed by the District
Magistrate, restoring the arm's license to
the opposite party no. 2 after having
found that the criminal case shown
pending against him had resulted in
acquittal and the High Court had passed
a direction in his favour to restore the
license and the weapon as well.

10. The sole basis of making
publication of the said news item was that
there was report of the co-accused Sanjay
Singh to the effect that the abovementioned four cases were pending
against him and hence, he had made the
said publication simply on the basis of the
police report. There was no intention
while publishing the said news item to
defame the opposite party no. 2, rather it
was simply a news item, which was
statement of fact, basis of which was
police report, which later on came to be
set aside by the order of District
Magistrate dated 15.10.2007, hence, he
cannot be held liable for having caused
offence under Sections 500 and 501 of
I.P.C.

11. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2
vehemently opposed the quashing of the
proceedings against the applicant because
according to him, it was very much in the
knowledge of the accused-applicant that
those criminal cases, which are cited
above, had already been closed and the
accused-applicant had been acquitted and
the license of the gun was also restored to
the opposite party no. 2 and yet, knowing
full well, the said news item was
published in the said papers with a view
to maligning the image of the opposite
party no. 2, hence, offence under Sections
500 and 501 of I.P.C. were made out on
the basis of evidence which has been
recorded by the trial court.
1 All. Vishweshwar Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55

12. Reliance has been placed by
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of K. Sitaram and Another v.
CFL Capital Financial Service Limited
and Another. In the above-mentioned
case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that when a person files a complaint
and supports it on oath, rendering himself
liable to prosecution and embezzlement, if
it is false, he is entitled to be believed
unless there is some apparent reason for
disbelieving him; and he is entitled to
have the person, against whom he
complains, brought before the court and
tried. The only condition requisite for the
issue of process is that the complainant's
deposition must show sufficient ground
for proceeding.

13. From the side of the applicant, in
paragraph no. 32 of the affidavit, it is
mentioned that a perusal of the order
dated 15.10.2007 passed by the District
Magistrate would itself demonstrate that
the D.M. was not in the knowledge of
earlier proceedings and as such, if at all
he had given any statement against
opposite party no. 2, that was on the basis
of criminal proceedings and relying on the
police report. However, the reporting of
the publishing was done only on the basis
of the statement given by the then District
Magistrate and after doing preliminary
enquiry
by
the
reporter
concerned,
whereby he was shown the papers
regarding criminal prosecution as well as
the reports given by the police station
concerned to the District Magistrate and
as such, it cannot be said that the said
reporting was done with laxity and
without proper investigation, with an
intention to defame any person. The
petitioner/applicant, at the time of the said
reporting,
was
Resident
Editor
of
Hindustan Times Media Ltd. The said
reporting was not done by him. There was
no intention nor any personal enmity with
the complainant to publish false report
against him, rather it was a plain and
simple reporting of the fact as narrated by
the then District Magistrate, Varanasi and
there was no ulterior motive against the
complainant to defame him or tarnish his
image. The trial court has ignored the
settled principle of law that in order to
constitute abetment, the abettor must be
shown
to
have
intention
as
well
knowledge
to
have
aided
in
the
commission of the offence.

14. In the instant case, the applicant
cannot be said to be an abettor as there was
no intention or knowledge to commit the
offence. There was no prima facie case
made out against the applicant. There is not
an iota of single specific allegation against
the applicant in relation to the publication of
the said news item and yet he has been
summoned. Further, it was mentioned that
under Section 7 of the Press and Regulation
of Books Act, 1867, it is only the office of
the "editor" as defined under Section 1(1) of
the Act who can be held responsible for the
publication and no other person. The said
Act has been reproduced in the affidavit. It
was necessary that the editor should have
been directly responsible for publishing any
news item.

15. Reliance has also been placed
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, in which it is held that there is
no concept of vicarious liability under
criminal
law.
The
trial
court
has
miserably
failed
to
appreciate
the
evidence on record and has taken
cognizance erroneously, which needs to
be set aside.
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. From the side of opposite party
no. 2, counter affidavit has been filed, in
which all the submissions made in the
affidavit have been rebutted and it has
been asserted that there was sufficient
evidence on record for the trial court to
summon the accused under the aforesaid
sections.

17. In the rejoinder affidavit filed
from the side of the applicant, the same
facts have been reiterated, which have
been mentioned in the affidavit and
nothing new has been stated.

18. The facts in the case are very
much clear, as has been mentioned above.
It is a fact that the opposite party no. 2
was an accused under Section 302 of
I.P.C., but he had been acquitted for the
same by the trial court way back in the
year 2002 and the gun license was issued
in favour of opposite party no. 2, which
was cancelled by the District Magistrate
and thereafter, the said decision was
upheld by the Commissioner. Both the
orders were set aside by the High Court in
Writ Petition No. 20298 of 2001 vide
order dated 14.05.2003 and the said
license was restored to the opposite party
no. 2, while the news item in question has
been published in 2007. It is apparent that
the said news item appears to have been
printed in newspapers without taking
proper care and making proper enquiry
and the possibility cannot be ruled out
that the same could have been published
in order to bring down the image of the
opposite party no. 2, as has been stated in
the complaint and supported by the two
witnesses named above. It has been
argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant had no
intention to defame opposite party no. 2
and that he had simply printed the news
item on the basis of his information which
he had received from the District
Magistrate and also on the basis of police
report, is something which needs to be
decided by the trial court after having
appreciated the evidence on record of
both
the
sides
and
after
having
appreciated
in
the
light
of
crossexamination made as to whether the
evidence to be adduced by the parties
proves the offence as has been committed
by the accused-applicant or not. In case
the trial court comes to the conclusion
that there was no sufficient evidence on
record to hold the accused guilty of
having published the said news item
deliberately in order to lower his image in
the estimation of public, then the accused
may get acquittal from the trial court, but
at this stage, prima facie there is evidence
against the applicant which discloses
commission of offence under Sections
500 and 501 of I.P.C.

19. Sections 500 and 501 of I.P.C.
are reproduced herein below :-

500.
Punishment
for
defamation.-Whoever defames another
shall
be
punished
with
simple
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

501. Printing or engraving
matter known to be defamatory.-Whoever
prints or engraves any matter, knowing or
having good reason to believe that such
matter is defamatory of any person, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.

20. It is apparent from the above
definition of offence under Section 501 of
1 All. Smt. Rekha Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
57
I.P.C. that if someone prints or engraves
any matter knowing that such matter is
defamatory of a person, he shall be
punished
with
two
years'
simple
imprisonment or with fine or with both.

21. In the present case, there is
certainly a news item printed, which is found
by the trial court to be defamatory against the
opposite party no. 2, as two witnesses have
stated that when they read the said piece of
evidence, they started viewing the opposite
party no. 2 in poor light, considering that he
was a criminal and tried to stay away from
him and the marriage of his son had also
broken on that account. Therefore, the fact as
to whether the said news item was printed in
the said newspapers knowingly that the same
would tarnish the image of the opposite party
no. 2 or not, is a matter of evidence and a
full-fledged trial is required to be held for the
same. Therefore, at the initial stage, the
proceedings against the applicant cannot be
nibbed in the bud and reliance may be placed
by me upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Md. Abdullah Khan v.
Prakash K., wherein it was held that it must
be established that matter printed and offered
for sale is defamatory within the meaning of
expression under Section of 499 of I.P.C. If
so proved, the next step would be to examine
the question whether the accused-respondent
committed the acts which constitute the
offence of which he is charged, with the
requisite intention or knowledge, etc. to
make his act culpable. The answer to
question depends upon facts. If the
respondent is the person who either made or
published the defamatory imputation, he
would be liable for punishment under
Section 500 of I.P.C. and if he is the person
who "printed" the matter, then within the
meaning of expression under Section 501 of
I.P.C. Whether there is sufficient evidence to
establish the guilt of the respondent for the
said offence, is a matter that can be examined
only after recording the evidence at the time
of the trial. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court had held that the High Court did not
choose to give any reason, whatsoever, for
quashing the complaint, except concluding
that the prosecution of accused would lead to
miscarriage of justice, which was held to be
wrong and it was considered proper that the
trial ought to have been held.

23. Adopting the above principle of
law in the present case, I am of the view
that in the present case as well, it would
be appropriate to have a full-fledged trial
so as to gather the intention of the
accused, whether it was there to defame
the opposite party no. 2 in order to lower
his image in the estimation of the public
and with that motive the news item was
printed or whether it was simply a
statement of fact. This Court cannot
prejudge this issue without the full trial.

23. In view of the aforesaid, the
prayer for quashing the entire proceedings
in the aforesaid case is refused and
resultantly,
the
instantly
application
stands rejected.
-----
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 6919 of 2015
(u/s -482 Cr. P.C.)

Smt. Rekha Gupta &Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants: