Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023A482/25899/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings regarding an admission card error where the applicant's photograph was replaced by his sister's. The High Court found the prosecution to be an abuse of process and a cause of grave miscarriage of justice due to the authority's mistake, allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2019 and further proceedings against the applicant are quashed.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186719

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25899 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1.

¶7

2-Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶8

3-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2019, cognizance / summoning order dated 18.05.2019 and proceedings of case no. 1355 of 2019 (State vs. Ravindra Kumar) arising out of case crime no. 433 of 2018, under Sections 419, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Gagalheri, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur.

¶9

4-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that on 23.12 2018, opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report under Sections 419, 468, 471 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging interalia that on 23.12.2018 applicant appeared in the second shift examination of U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and during examination, it was found that he was appearing in the said examination by scanning the photograph of a girl in his place in the admit card. On downloading the admit card of the applicant from net, the photograph of a girl was found in it.

¶10

5-During investigation, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2 namely Neetu Valiya (In-charge Principal of P.G. Pious Inter College, Saharanpur) and witnesses namely Sri Sandeep

¶11

Sharma (Invigilator), Smt. Minakshi (Invigilator) and Moni Tomar were recorded on 30.12.2018. After culmination of the investigation, investigating ofÏcer submitted charge-sheet dated 12.01.2019 against the applicant, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 18.05.2019, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.

¶12

6-It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 06.06.2018 applicant and his sister had applied for the post of Block Development OfÏcer by submitting their application form on-line through cyber cafe. On 07.06.2018, applicant received a message on his registered mobile that the photograph on his application form is not according to his gender. On the next day i.e. on 08.06.2018, applicant informed the owner of the cyber cafe about the said information received to him, on which he assured the applicant that he will get the same rectified. On 08.11.2018, the owner of the cyber cafe informed that the mistake in his application has been rectified, thereafter on 14.12.2018 at 2:40:30 pm, the applicant downloaded his admit card from the website (http://upssc.gov.in). On 22.12.2018, applicant's sister appeared in the said examination at examination center, namely, Star Paper Mills Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Inter College, Saharanpur. On 23.12.2018, when applicant reached at the examination center namely P.G. Pious Inter College, Saharanpur along with amended/corrected admit card, he was not allowed to write examination because at the time of his biometric attendance, uncorrected admit card was uploaded therein and a photograph of applicant's sister was afÏxed in place of the applicant in his admit card whereas other particulars were correctly shown. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant is innocent and he went to write examination with bona-fide belief that cyber cafe owner has corrected the mistake of his admit card but later at the time of biometric attendance, it was revealed that due to mistake on the part of examining body, the said mistake has not been corrected in the computer record and he has suffered a lot. Lastly it is

¶13

submitted that under the facts of the case, no offence is made out against the applicant and criminal proceeding against the applicant is abuse of the process of the Court.

¶14

7-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. as well as in the light of statements under Sections 161 of the witnesses by contending that on 23.12.2018, during the examination, the admit card of the applicant was downloaded by the opposite party no. 2, in which the photo of applicant's sister was afÏxed.

¶15

8-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that investigating ofÏcer did not record the statement of concerned persons/controlling authorities, who had conducted the examination in question. The applicant and his sister both applied for the same examination by submitting their on-line form, therefore, possibility of bona-fide mistake of afÏxing the photograph of applicant's sister on the application form of the applicant can not be ruled out. I also find that except the photograph, all other details were correctly mentioned in the admit card.

¶16

9-Here it would be apposite to quote some relevant judgments of the Apex Court, which are as under:-

¶17

9.1-The Apex Court in State of Harayana and others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, considering a series of decisions has laid down seven criteria for quashing the entire proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court, which reads as under:-

¶18

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶19

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by

¶20

police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶21

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶22

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶23

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶24

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶25

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶26

9.2-The Apex Court in the case of Som Mittal vs Government of Karnataka , (2008) 3 SCC 753, has held that :-

¶27

"When grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed; or where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed; or when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. Then the inherent power of the Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court, or otherwise To secure the ends of justice."

¶28

9.3-The Apex Court in case of Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. , (2013) 9 SCC 245, has held as under:-

¶29

"It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal

¶30

prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint."

¶31

10-On the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings against the applicant initiated by opposite party no. 2 is nothing but a clear abuse of process of the Court. The impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2019 of this case is not sustainable. This Court, under the facts and circumstances of this case, feels that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to such frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations and complaint, if criminal proceeding is allowed to go on, the same will tantamount to causing grave miscarriage of justice, therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed.

¶32

11-As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2019 and further proceedings of the above mentioned case against the applicant are hereby quashed.

¶33

12-Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed .

¶34

13-It is made clear that this case shall not be treated as criminal history of the applicant.

¶35

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Saurabh

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rihana and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aradhna Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awdhesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Gupta Alias Suresh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinit Vs State of U.P. and Another