Allowed

Nitin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022/1503/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of FIR and proceedings alleging the applicant misplaced a writ petition file. The court quashed proceedings, finding no evidence that the applicant visited the court or instructed anyone to misplace the file.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 10.8.2020, charge sheet dated 7.7.2020, and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.76159 of 2019 quashed.

Nitin Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1503 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Singh

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakshit Raj Singh,S M Singh Royekwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rakshit Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 10.8.2020, charge sheet dated 7.7.2020, arising out of Case Crime No.461 of 2019, under Sections 380, 411, 34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.76159 of 2019, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011 before this Court, in which an interim order dated 15.11.2011 was passed for providing security to the petitioner on payment basis. The order dated 15.11.2011 is extracted herein under:-

¶9

“ In spite of time having been granted, opposite parties have not filed counter affidavit.

¶10

Keeping in view the pleadings on record and the factual matrix argued by the learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, opposite parties are directed to provide security to the petitioner on payment basis immediately in accordance with rules.

¶11

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List thereafter.”

¶12

The aforesaid writ petition was listed before the Court on 18.7.2019, but the case file did not reach to the Court as it was not traceable in the concerned Section. The Court smelled some foul play and directed for lodging an FIR in the case if it was

¶13

found that file was not sent to the Court due to the extraneous reasons.

¶14

In pursuance to the direction of this Court, an inquiry was conducted and in the CCTV footage of the concerned section, it was found that one Manoj Kumar S/o Late Krishna Chandra Lal was acting in a dubious manner and on the basis of an old identity card he has entered into the premises of eh High Court. The said Manoj Kumar during the course of inquiry accepted to have misplaced the file and he only recovered the file where it was hidden. The case was registered against the said Manoj Kumar for the said act on a compliant lodged by Sri Ram Kripal Maurya, Deputy Registrar of the High Court at case Crime No.461 of 2019, under Sections 380, 411, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow. It is said that Sri Suyash Gupta, counsel for the petitioner was on sanctioned leave on 18.7.2019. In the inquiry, Manoj Kumar, who was examined by Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena, OSD (Judicial), who was appointed as Inquiry Officer and conducted the inquiry regarding misplacement of the file stated as under:-

¶15

“ My name is Manoj Kumar s/o Late Shri Krishna Chandra Lal and I am resident of 1/326, Vishal Khand (1), Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Presently, I am serving as a private clerk to Shri Badrish Tripathi, Advocate. Earlier to this I was serving as Sewak with Justice Shailendra Saxena from 2004 to 2006. My file is pending before Registrar General, Allahabad and to pursue the file, I keep coming to the Court. On 18.07.2019 at about 10 O'Clock, I had gone to Writ MB Section for inquiring about a copy. I found file of 10096/11 M.B., which I put under the rack. I put the file there on the asking of Shri O.P. Srivastava. Shri Om Prakash Srivastava, Advocate had told me that file 10096/11 M.B., should not be sent to the Court.

¶16

Sir, it is stated that in future I will not commit any such fault.”

¶17

The Investigating Officer investigated the offence and Call Detail Record (CDR) of the main accused, Manoj Kumar, Suyash Gupta, counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011 and the petitioner was examined and

¶18

formed part of the case diary. During the course of investigation, statement of another accused, Chotey Lal was recorded. Statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The Investigating Officer after conclusion of the investigation in the aforesaid criminal case, submitted the charge sheet bearing no.2 of 2020 on 7.7.2020 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case Crime No.461 of 2019. The petitioner has been roped in with the aid of Section 120-B and 34 IPC.

¶19

Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.32684 (MB) of 2019 for quashing of the FIR registered at Case Crime No.461 of 2019, under Sections 380 and 411 IPC. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2019. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition No.11267 of 2019 before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition No.11267 of 2019 reads as under:-

¶20

"The present petition arises out of an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.461 dated 19.07.2019 registered with Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, under Sections 380/411 IPC and proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.

¶21

It appears that as regards the role of the accused named Manoj Kumar, Charge-sheet has already been filed in September, 2019 and going by the assertions in the charge-sheet, the investigation as regards the other accused including the present petitioner is still going on.

¶22

In the circumstances, we do not see any reason why the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be entertained at this stage. The High Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer.

¶23

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we however grant opportunity to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. within seven days from today.

¶24

For the next seven days, the petitioner may not be arrested in connection with said FIR No.461. Thereafter, in case such an application is filed, it is left to the concerned Court to consider whether any protection is to be afforded to the petitioner or not.

¶25

The matter shall be considered purely on its own merit. We shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on merits or demerits of the matter.

¶26

The special leave petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶27

In pursuance to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 17.1.2020 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner visited the High Court premises or M.B. Section on the date i.e. 18.7.2019. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had ever spoken to the said Manoj Kumar, Chotey Lal or Om Prakash Srivastava, Advocate. The petitioner would not know the dealings and nuances involved about sending the file in the Court. It is the job of the Advocate to manage the case inside the Court. It is the Advocate, who represents him, would tell him what would be done in the case. When the petitioner did not do any overt/covert act in respect of misplacing the file, the offence for which the charge sheet has been filed, is not attracted against him.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the attention of this Court to the fact that the police has exonerated Sri Suyash Gupta, learned counsel who was representing him in the said Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011 and the charge sheet has not been filed against him.

¶30

The only evidence collected during the course of investigation is that the petitioner had spoken to his Lawyer on several occasions on 17.7.2019 and there were eight calls between him and his Lawyer, Suyesh Gupta on 18.7.2019. Once

¶31

the police has exonerated his counsel, the petitioner cannot be charge sheeted for the offence inasmuch as there is no other evidence against him except that he had spoken to his Lawyer and speaking to Lawyer is not an offence.

¶32

Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA has, however, opposed the petition and has submitted that there is enough evidence to support the charge against the petitioner, but he has not disputed the fact that the police had exonerated Sri Suyash Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011, and no charge sheet has been filed against him. He has not been able to show any evidence against the petitioner except that he had spoken to his Lawyer several times on 17.7.2019 and there were eight calls between him and his Lawyer, Suyash Gupta on 18.7.2019.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶34

The FIR has been registered for misplacing the case file of Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011 on 18.7.2019, which was not sent to the Court for alleged ulterior purposes. During the course of investigation, the main accused, Manoj Kumar had not said that the present petitioner ever spoke to him or Manoj Kumar knew the petitioner. There is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner visited the High Court premises on 18.7.2019 when the case was listed or he did any overt and covert act to get the file misplaced, so that it was not sent to the Court on the date fixed. The only evidence is that the petitioner and his Lawyer had spoken for several times on 17.7.2019, the date before listing of Writ Petition No.10096 (MB) of 2011 before this Court i.e. on 18.7.2019 and there were eight calls between them.

¶35

Speaking to ones’ Lawyer is not an offence. There is

¶36

nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had given instructions to any concerned person to misplace the file, so that the same be not sent to the Court. The police had filed closure report in favour of Suyash Gupta with whom the petitioner had allegedly spoken eight times on 17.7.2019. If the Lawyer has not been found guilty, this Court cannot fathom that there is any evidence against the petitioner to connect him with commission of the crime.

¶37

Considering the evidence on record, prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but a futile exercise and it would not be in the interest of justice.

¶38

Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 10.8.2020, charge sheet dated 7.7.2020, arising out of Case Crime No.461 of 2019, under Sections 380, 411, 34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.76159 of 2019, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

¶39

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Rao/-

¶40

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.07.27 18:51:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nitin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madik Manik Lal Vs State of U.P.and 6 Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Tripathi @ Bauwan Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Vishal Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Hari Shankar @ Shiv Shankar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. and Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs Aiman Zaidi