Allowed

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023A482/2029/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and criminal charges against the applicant. The charges relied on facts identical to those in a terminated service order, which the High Court had earlier quashed in a Writ Petition without an appeal by the State, rendering the criminal proceeding unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 246 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. were quashed.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150686

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2029 of 2007

¶4

Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- D.K. Singh,A.K. Rai,Amit Kumar Shrivastava,Brijesh Kumar Pandey,Pradeep Chauhan,Ravi Shanker Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶7

Ref:-Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶9

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the 482 application within the period of limitation.

¶10

The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the recall application is condoned.

¶11

Ref:-Criminal Misc. Restoration/Recall Application No. 03 of 2022

¶12

This is an application for recalling the order dated 02.08.2021 dismissing the 482 application in default/as infructuous.

¶13

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. The order dated 02.08.2021 is recalled and the 482 application is restored to its original number.

¶14

Order on order sheet

¶15

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶17

The present 482 Cr.P.2C. application has been filed to quash the Criminal Case No. 246 of 2007 (State vs. Sushil), under Sections420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Rakabganj, DistrictAgra, pending in the court of XIIIth A.C.J.M., Court No. 46, Agra.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that father of applicant was constable in U.P. Police and died-in-harness in the year 1984. After the death of his father, applicant was given appointment on compassionate ground and joined his services on 04.12.1987 on the post of Constable. It appears that after some time, younger brother of applicant has also applied for appointment on compassionate ground and has been appointed on the post of follower in Police Department on 26.11.1996. An affidavit was sought from applicant about the facts as to whether any other person of his family is appointed in Police Department on compassionate ground or not. Case of applicant is that he has submitted his affidavit with specific denial, but not relying upon the affidavit, present criminal proceeding has been initiated by lodging an F.I.R., which was registered under section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. in which he was chargesheeted and after taking cognizance, process was also issued. The said proceeding is under challenged in the present case.

¶19

It is next submitted that service of applicant was terminated vide order dated 03.01.2007. Applicant has challenged the termination order before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 9186 of 2007 in which, this Court has considered this fact that no department inquiry was conducted against the applicant and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, therefore, his affidavit which was filed along with rejoinder affidavit could not be verified by the Department. Considering the said facts, writ petition was allowed vide order dated 06.05.2008 quashing the termination order dated 03.01.2007. It is further submitted that in compliance of order of this Court dated 06.05.2008, applicant was restrained in service vide letter dated 28.05.2008 and continuously discharging his duties without any break. He is presently posted at Ghaziabad.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant firmly submitted that facts of the F.I.R. and termination order are same and now termination order has been quashed by this Court against which, no appeal has been filed by the State, therefore, under such circumstances, criminal proceeding is bad and also liable to be set aside.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. though opposed the submissions of counsel for applicant, but count not dispute this fact that Writ Petition No. 9186 of 2007 was allowed by this Court quashing the termination

¶22

order dated 03.01.2007. Thereafter, applicant was reinstated in service vide letter dated 28.05.2008 and presently working in Police Department, Ghaziabad.

¶23

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by counsel for parties and perused the records.

¶24

Facts of the case are undisputed. Once no appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 9186 of 2007 and applicant was reinstated in service, there is no occasion to continue the present criminal proceeding against the applicant which is based on the same grounds. Therefore, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶25

The present application is, accordingly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Sartaj

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Arkan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brijesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another