Allowed

Ramsewak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023/2102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 CrPC, the court quashed the charge sheet and summoning order. The applicant admitted taking the respondent's paper book by mistake during a hearing and returned it, asserting no offence was committed.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 28.10.2022, summoning order dated 19.12.2022, and entire proceedings are quashed.

Ramsewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44719

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2102 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramsewak

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Piyush Tripathi,Shivam Srivastava

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saeedul Hasan Khan

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as private respondent no. 2 appearing in person.

¶10

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.10.2022 as well as summoning order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Case No. 124099 of 2022, (State Vs. Ramsevak Kanaujiya) arising out of F.I.R. No. 244 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and its entire proceedings.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as the applicant was terminated from services, he filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 5161 of 2016 (Ramsevak Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service). It is also submitted that the said case was listed in Court No. 20 on 30.03.2019 and in Court No. 23 on 09.04.2019 and the applicant, who was depressed due to his termination, while taking his own file, also took away another paper book belonging to the private respondent, in anxiety. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that when this fact came into his knowledge, the same was returned by the wife of the applicant to the private respondent no. 2. However, on the basis of incorrect fact, the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after investigation, the Investigating OfÏcer filed final report thrice in the matter, but lastly under the order of the Magistrate, further

¶12

investigation was conducted and impugned charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant admits that the paper book of respondent no. 2 was taken away by him due to mistake and the same was returned to him also.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there is some dispute in between the private respondent and some members of Haj Committee and respondent no. 2 is forcing the applicant to take name of one Abdul Raheem Ansari that on his abetment, the applicant took away the file of respondent no. 2. It is vehemently submitted that applicant has no concern whatsoever with any Abdul Raheem Ansari and he never identify any such person. It is lastly submitted that it was only a mistake of the applicant and no such offence can be said to be made out and, therefore, the indulgence of this Court is necessary and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed, including the impugned charge sheet.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 2 appearing in person oppose the prayer of the applicant and submit that the charge sheet has been filed after detail investigation. They also submit that the applicant may appear before the court below and apprise all these facts at the appropriate stage.

¶15

Respondent no. 2 also submits that at the behest of one Abdul Raheem Ansari, the applicant had stolen his paper book. However, he does not dispute the fact that no evidence was collected by the Investigating OfÏcer in relation to the conversation in between the applicant and Abdul Raheem Ansari nor as per the CCTV footage, the paper book of respondent no. 2 was taken by said Abdul Raheem Ansari and handed over to the applicant.

¶16

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 2 appearing in person and going through the contents of the application and other relevant

¶17

documents, it is admitted by the applicant that he has no concern with the alleged Abdul Raheem Ansari, who has inimical with the respondent no. 2. It is also evident that on the date of incident, the case of the applicant was also listed and he took away the paper book of respondent no. 2 along with his file, by mistake. Admittedly, the paper book was later on returned to the respondent no. 2 also.

¶18

In view of above facts and circumstances, no alleged offence is made out. Charge sheet dated 28.10.2022 as well as summoning order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Case No. 124099 of 2022, (State Vs. Ramsevak Kanaujiya) arising out of F.I.R. No. 244 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and its entire proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶19

The application stands allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 VKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramsewak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsewak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. 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

Anwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sita Singh Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

James Illoduba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Deptt. and Others

Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradip Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Ramesh Chandra @ Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. and 2 Others