# Ved Krishna v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 1195
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1177 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ved-krishna-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49628
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Sections 190 (1)(b)- Summoning
Order-issued without application of judicial
mind-in
mechanical
manner-on
a
printed
proforma-is
objectionable-Summoning
order
must reflect application of mind to the facts and
the law-quashed-matter remitted back. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Ved Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1195
applicants and the law well settled as stated
above, no case for interference is made out.

24. Accordingly, the present 77
Criminal Misc. Applications U/S 482
Cr.P.C. are dismissed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1195
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1177 of 2023

Ved Krishna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rishad Murtaza, Aishwarya Mishra, Syed Ali
Jafar Rizvi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Sections 190 (1)(b)- Summoning
Order-issued without application of judicial
mind-in
mechanical
manner-on
a
printed
proforma-is
objectionable-Summoning
order
must reflect application of mind to the facts and
the law-quashed-matter remitted back. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilawar Vs St. of Har., (2018) 16 SCC 521,

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I., AIR 1978 SC 597,

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St. of Bihar,
(1980)1 SCC 81,

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak, (1992)
1 SCC 225

5. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karn., (2002) 4
SCC 578

6. H.N. Rishbud Vs St. of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC
196

7. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747

8. Basaruddin & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011
(1) JIC 335 (All)(LB)

9. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747

10. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I., AIR 2015 SC
923

11. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of Mah. ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654

12. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed in
Application U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009

13. Megh Nath Guptas & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr. 2008 (62) ACC 826

14. Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export
Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC),

15. UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan
Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC
1456

16. Kanti Bhadra Vs St. of W. B., 2000 (1) JIC
751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC)

17. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010

18. Abdul Rasheed & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned
counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Manoj Singh learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant with a prayer to quash the
proceedings
of
Case
No.
1004/2019
pending before the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Faizabad under
Sections 427, 188 I.P.C. relating to Crime
No.
493/2018,
Police
Station
Pura
Kalandar, District Faizabad as well as
summoning order dated 02.04.2019 passed
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-I
Faizabad
in
Case
No.
1004/2019,
relating
to
Crime
No.
493/2018, under Sections 427, 188 I.P.C.,
Police Station Pura Kalandar, District
Faizabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that a First Information Report was
registered by opposite party No.2, Police
Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad
under Sections 504, 506, 427, 447 and 379
I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that as per the version of
the F.I.R. the informant is pairokar of Sri
Laxmi Kant Jhunjhunwala and Sri Prakash
Chandra Jhunjhunwal who have land
situated at Gata No.383 and in Gata No.
399 they have 11 Bigha 15 Biswa 5 Dhoor
registered in the revenue record and the
competent court has directed for its
partition.
It
is
also
mentioned
that
informant has made an application to the
District Magistrate on whose direction
Consolidation Officer and Police people
have got pegs fixed on the spot on
17.05.2018 and they had submitted the
report to the District Magistrate concerned
and the same has been approved and
disposed on 11.06.2018. It is further alleged
that instead of pegs, cemented pillars 40-45
in numbers, were erected and the accused
person along with his 20-25 companions
have demolished the aforesaid cemented
pillars and carried some to them and when
the informant came to know about this
incident then he has again given an
application for demarcation and upon the
direction of District Magistrate a strong
med/boundary was created but again the
accused persons got it demolished and they
also abused and threatened the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the entire prosecution
story is false. No such incident took place
and the applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that before arguing the case
on merits, he wants to draw attention of this
Court on the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2018
submitted by the Investigating Officer in
mechanical manner under Sections 427 and
188 I.P.C., copy of the same is filed as
Annexure No.7 to the affidavit, whereas he
further submits that on the charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on
02.04.2019. The cognizance was taken on
the printed proforma by filling the sections
of IPC, dates and number and in the said
proforma the learned Magistrate without
assigning any reason has summoned the
applicant for facing trial. Copy of the
cognizance order is also annexed as
Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that by the order dated
02.04.2019 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrate on printed proforma without
assigning any reason is abuse of process of
law and the same was without application
of mind and was in a routine manner.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
2 All. Ved Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1197
charge sheet and cognizance order on
printed proforma, the applicant has been
summoned mechanically by order dated
02.04.2019 and the court below while
summoning the applicant has materially
erred and did not follow the dictum of law
as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various cases that summoning in
criminal case is a serious matter and the
court below without dwelling into material
and visualizing the case on the touch stone
of probability should not summon accused
person to face criminal trial. It is further
submitted that the court below has not
taken into consideration the material placed
before the trial court along with charge
sheet and, therefore, the trial court has
materially
erred
in
summoning
the
applicant. The court below has summoned
the applicant through a printed order, which
is wholly illegal.

9. It is vehemently urged by learned
counsel for the applicant that the impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
02.04.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of
law, as the same has been passed in
mechanical manner without applying the
judicial mind, because on the face of record
itself
it
is
apparent
that
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
02.04.2019 has been passed by the
Magistrate concerned on printed proforma
by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has given much emphasis that if the
cognizance has been taken on the printed
proforma, the same is not sustainable.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State
submitted
that
considering
the
material evidences and allegations against
the applicant on record, as on date, as per
prosecution case, the cognizable offence
against the applicant is made out, therefore,
application is liable to be dismissed but has
not denied that the leaned Magistrate has
taken cognizance on the printed proforma.
Accordingly, this case is being finally
decided at this stage without issuing notice
to opposite party no.2 and without calling
for a counter affidavit.

12. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

13. The main issue for consideration
before this Court is that whether the learned
Magistrate may summon the accused
person on a printed proforma without
assigning any reason and take cognizance
on police report filed under Sections 173 of
Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is relevant to
mention here that a Court can take
cognizance of an offence only when
condition
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings before it as set out in Chapter
XIV of the Code are fulfilled. Otherwise,
the Court does not obtain jurisdiction to try
the offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. provided that "subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence,

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub-section
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

14. At this juncture, it is fruitful to
have a look so far as the law pertaining to
summoning of the accused persons, by
taking cognizance on a police report filed
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is
concerned and the perusal of the case law
mentioned herein below would clearly
reveal that cognizance of an offence on
complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a
process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind as to whether the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer results in sufficient grounds to
proceed further and would constitute
violation of law so as to call a person to
appear before the criminal court to face
trial. This discretion puts a responsibility
on the magistrate concerned to act
judiciously keeping in view the facts of the
particular case as well as the law on the
subject and the orders of Magistrate does
not suffers from non-application of judicial
mind while taking cognizance of the
offence.

15. Fair and proper investigation is
the primary duty of the Investigating
Officer. No investigating agency can take
unduly
long
time
in
completing
investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry,
appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear
need
for
time
line
in
completing
investigation for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for
adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed
at different levels in the hierarchy, vide
Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16
SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of
India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara
Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1
SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.
Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P.
Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnatka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578.

16. For the purposes of investigation,
offences are divided into two categories
"cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When
information of a cognizable offence is
received or such commission is suspected,
the proper police officer has the authority
to enter in the investigation of the same but
where the information relates to a noncognizable offence, he shall not investigate
it without the order of the competent
Magistrate. Investigation includes all the
proceedings under the Cr.P.C. for the
collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person other than a
Magistrate (who is authorised by a
Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation
consists of steps, namely (i) proceeding to
spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv)
collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence and (v)
formation of opinion as to whether on the
material collected therein to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if
so to take necessary steps for the same by
filing a charge sheet under Section 173,
Cr.P.C., vide H.N. Rishbud vs. State of
Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate has to take cognizance
after application of judicial mind and by
reasoned order and not in mechanical
manner.

17. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
2 All. Ved Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1199
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceedIn the case of
Basaruddin & others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2011 (1) JIC 335 (All)(LB),
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observed
as under:-

"From a perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that the learned Magistrate
on the complaint filed by the complainant
has summoned the accused in a mechanical
way filling the date in the typed proforma.
Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance
of the offence on complaint was expected to
go through the allegations made in the
complaint and to satisfy himself as to which
offences were prima facies, being made out
against the accused on basis of allegations
made in the complaint. It appears that the
learned Magistrate did not bother to go
through the allegations made in the
complaint and ascertain as to what offences
were, prima facie, being made out against
the accused on the basis of allegations made
in the complaint. Apparently, the impugned
order passed by the learned Magistrate
suffers from non-application of mind while
taking cognizance of the offence. The
impugned order is not well reasoned order,
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed
and the petition deserves to be allowed and
the matter may be remanded back to the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri with direction to him to go
through the allegations made in the
complaint and ascertain as to what offences
against the accused were prima facie being
made out against the accused on the basis of
allegations made in the complaint and pass
fresh order, thereafter, he will proceed
according to law."

18. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued. This section
mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion
as to whether there exists a sufficient
ground for summons to be issued but it is
nowhere mentioned in the section that the
explicit narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
summons issued.

19. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR
2015 SC 923, the Hon,ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no.47 of
the judgment as under:

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

20. In the case of Darshan Singh
Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observe that the process of
taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action, but it occurs as soon as the
Magistrate
applies
his
mind
to
the
allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial
notice of the offence. As provided by
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
a
Magistrate
may
take
cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon
receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police
report, or (c) upon information received
from a person other than a police officer or
even
upon his
own
information
or
suspicion that such an offence has been
committed. As has often been held, taking
cognizance does not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his
mind to the suspected commission of an
offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place
at a point when a Magistrate first takes
judicial notice of an offence. This is the
position whether the Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or
on a police report, or upon information of a
person
other
than
a
police
officer.
Therefore,
when
a
Magistrate
takes
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report, prima facie he does so of the
offence or offences disclosed in such
report."

21. In the case of Ankit Vs. State
of
U.P.
And
another
passed
in
Application U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009
decided on 15.10.2009, this Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph No.8 of
the judgment as under:-

"8. In the beginning, the name
of the court, case number, state vs. .......
under section ......... P.S. ......... District
......... case crime No. ........ /2009 also
have been printed and blanks have been
filled up by mentioning the case number,
name of the accused, section, P.S.
District etc. by some employee. Below
afore cited printed matter, the following
sentence
has
been
mentioned
in
handwriting
"अदभयुि
अांदकि
की
दगरफ्तारी मा0 उच्च न्यायायल द्वारा Crl. Writ
No. 19559/08 अांदकि बनाम राज्य में पाररि
आिेश दिनाांक 5.11.08 द्वारा आरोप पत्र प्राप्त
होने िक स्थदगि थी।"

Below aforesaid sentence, the
seal of the court containing name of Sri
Talevar Singh, the then Judicial MagistrateIII, has been affixed and the learned
magistrate has put his short signature
(initial) over his name. The manner in
which the impugned order has been
prepared shows that the learned magistrate
did not at all apply his judicial mind at the
time of passing this order and after the
blanks were filled up by some employee of
the court, he has put his initial on the seal
of the court. This method of passing
judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the
shake of argument, it is assumed that the
blanks on the printed proforma were filled
up in the handwriting of learned magistrate,
even then the impugned order would be
illegal and invalid, because order of taking
cognizance of any other judicial order
cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the
printed proforma. Although as held by this
Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas &
Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62)
ACC 826, in which reference has been
made to the cases of Deputy Chief
Controller
Import
and
Export
Vs
Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686
(SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs
Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC):
AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs
State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751
(SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the
Magistrate is not required to pass detailed
reasoned order at the time of taking
cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does
not mean that order of taking cognizance
can be passed by filling up the blanks on
printed proforma. At the time of passing
any judicial order including the order
taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the
Court is required to apply judicial mind and
2 All. Ved Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1201
even the order of taking cognizance cannot
be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed
and the matter has to be sent back to the
Court below for passing fresh order on the
charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

22. In the case of Kavi Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010,
wherein order taking cognizance of offence
by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b)
on printed proforma without applying his
judicial mind towards the material collected
by the Investigating Officer has been held
illegal.

23. In the case of Abdul Rasheed
and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All). The relevant
observations and findings recorded in the
said case are quoted below:-

"6. Whenever any police report or
complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he
has to apply his mind to the facts stated in
the report or complaint before taking
cognizance. If after applying his mind to
the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
material to proceed with the matter, he may
take cognizance. In the present case, the
summoning order has been passed by
affixing a ready made seal of the
summoning order on a plain paper and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
merely entered the next date fixed in the
case in the blank portion of the ready made
order. Apparently the learned Magistrate
had not applied his mind to the facts of the
case before passing the order dated
20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld.

7. Judicial orders cannot be
allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed proforma or by affixing a ready
made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper.
Such tendency must be deprecated and
cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This
reflects not only lack of application of mind
to the facts of the case but is also against
the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this
practice must be stopped forthwith."

24. In view of the above, this Court
finds and observes that the conduct of the
judicial officers concerned in passing
orders on printed proforma by filling up the
blanks without application of judicial mind
is objectionable and deserves to be
deprecated. The summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter and
the order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were primafacie being made out against the applicants
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

25. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Faizabad is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance/summoning
order dated 02.04.2019 cannot be legally
sustained, as the Magistrate failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

26. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
is
allowed.
The
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
02.04.2019 passed by passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Faizabad in Case No. 1004/2019, under
Sections 427, 188 I.P.C. relating to Crime
No.
493/2018,
Police
Station
Pura
Kalandar, District Faizabad is hereby
quashed.

27. The matter is remitted back to
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Faizabad directing him to decide afresh the
issue for taking cognizance and summoning
the applicant and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made by this Court as well as
the direction contained in the judgments
referred to above within a period of two
months from the date of production of a
copy of this order.

28. The party shall file certified copy
or computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad or certified copy
issued from the Registry of the High Court,
Allahabad.

30. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1202
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 29725 of 2022
Dharmendra Yadav & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amar Nath Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Sri Rajeshwar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-summoning
order impugned-not named in the FIR-not
named by the victim in her St.ment-no medical
examination-no St.ment u/s 164 Cr.P. C.
recorded-applicant not present at the place of
incidence-affidavit by the victim stating that
Applicant is not involved in the alleged crimebut not part of the investigation-no case for
interference-as the same is subject matter of
the Trial.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Arun Shankar Shukla Vs St. of U.P. AIR 1999
SCC2554

2. St. of U.P. Vs Kasturi Lal, 2004 CRLJ 3866

3. Pawan Kumar Bhaalautiya Vs St. of W.B.,
2005 CRLJ1810 SC

4. T.J. Stephen Vs Parle Battling Co. Pvt. Ltd.
AIR 1985 SCC 994

5. Mac kuloch Vs Sate of W. B.1947 CRLJ 182
Cal HC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. यह प्राथषना पत्र धारा 482 ि०प्र०सां० के
अांिगषि िण्ड वाि सां0 77/2021 उिर प्रिेश राज्य
बनाम गनेश प्रसाि एवां अन्य अपराध सां० 606/2020
अांिगषि धारा 147, 452, 323, 504, 406, 422, 354 एवां
354B भा०ि०सां० थाना िाजगांज जनपि आगरा लांदबि
न्यायालय मुख्य न्यादयक िण्डादधकारी, आगरा की