Allowed

Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/11016/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a charge-sheet and summoning order under Section 406 IPC, arguing excessive unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that the unexplained delay and lack of material evidence constituted an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet No.01 dated 29.01.2023 in Criminal Case No.1450 of 2013 is quashed/set aside.

Manjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82

¶2

A.F.R.

¶3

Court No. - 11

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11016 of 2023

¶5

Applicant :- Manjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Shukla,Rajiv Raman Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

2. Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶10

3. As per the office report dated 04.12.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Lakhimpur Kheri has apprised the Court that the notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2 in person, however, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.

¶11

4. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the impugned Charge-sheet No.01 dated 29.01.2023 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case No.1450 of 2013 (State vs. Manjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.618 of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police StationBheera, District-Kheri as well as the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶12

5. The precise contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) bearing No.618 of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Bheera, District-Kheri has been lodged on 10.11.2022 for the alleged incident which is more than four years old.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the delay of more than four years has not been explained in the F.I.R. He has

¶14

drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.CA-1 of the counter affidavit which is a statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the delay of more than four years has not been explained.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. maximum punishment is three years but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after the delay of four years and such delay has not been explained. He has further submitted that despite the aforesaid fact the Investigating Agency has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner without having any relevant material and the corroborating evidences supporting the case of the prosecution.

¶16

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Amrit Lal vs. Shanti Lal Soni & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248. In the aforesaid judgement, the Apex Court has considered the judgment of Apex Court delivered by a Constitution Bench in re: Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherin & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 62, wherein two questions have been decided. The first question was whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? And the second question was that which of two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale (Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down the correct law?

¶17

The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows:-

¶18

"51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394] lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121: 1990 SCC (Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C."

¶19

(emphasis supplied)

¶20

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the Constitution Bench has held that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, then the relevant date in the present case would be the date which is four years old and no specific date has been indicated in the F.I.R. The delay has not been explained.

¶21

10. On being asked from the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Aniruddha Singh, as to what is the relevant material/ evidence which might have convinced the Investigating Agency that the present petitioner has committed offence under Section 406 I.P.C. or material/ evidence might have convinced the learned trial court to take cognizance on the charge-sheet which has been filed against the petitioner, Sri Aniruddha Singh, has stated that the statement of the complainant and other persons were recorded by the Investigating Agency and on the basis of those statements the charge-sheet has been filed.

¶22

11. On being further asked about the delay of more than four years in lodging an F.I.R., Sri Aniruddha Singh has stated that though there is no limitation prescribed in lodging the F.I.R. and if the offence is having recurring cause of action, such F.I.R. may be lodged but the allegations of the complainant should be tested on the material available on record. However, in view of the present facts and circumstances, no material could be shown to the Court that the delay of four years has been explained properly.

¶23

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, at the very outset, I must observe that despite the notice having been issued by this Court to the private opposite party and despite the service upon the private opposite party on or before 04.12.2023 but neither the private opposite party appeared nor any counsel on his behalf is appeared nor any request for adjournment of the case has been prayed, therefore, prima-facie, it appears that the private opposite party is not interested to contest the present case.

¶24

13. So far as the factum of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, the Apex Court in the case in re: Manoj Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1 has observed in para-18 as under:-

¶25

"18. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent No. 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent No. 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is apt to quote the following decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein it was held as under:-"

¶26

"12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the firsthand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question."

¶27

(emphasis supplied)

¶28

14. Therefore, the law is trite that if there is any delay in lodging the F.I.R., that should be explained properly inasmuch as an inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to prosecute the accused person. Besides, the offence for which the instant F.I.R. was lodged is having maximum punishment of three years but the present F.I.R. has been lodged after more than four years without having any proper explanation to that effect.

¶29

15. In view of the decision of Apex Court rendered in re: Amrit Lal (supra), the relevant date would be the date four years prior to the date of lodging of the F.I.R., as the date of F.I.R. is 10.11.2022.

¶30

16. When the delay has not been explained properly and the prosecution is having no proper material/ evidence to convince that any offence under Section 406 I.P.C. has been made out, then to file the charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency and to take cognizance by the trial court is nothing but to misuse and abuse of process of law in view of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: State of Haryana and others vs. Shri Bhajan

¶31

Lal & others reported in 1992 Supl. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

¶32

17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The Chargesheet No.01 dated 29.01.2023 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case No.1450 of 2013 (State vs. Manjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.618 of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Bheera, District-Kheri, is quashed/ set aside.

¶33

18. Consequences to follow.

¶34

19. No order as to costs.

¶35

Before parting with, I appreciate the efforts and research done by Mr. Piyush Tripathi, Law Clerk Trainee attached with me and Ms. Tanya Prasad and Ms. Adisri Kapoor, Law Interns for finding out the relevant case laws application in the present case.

¶36

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶37

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 Suresh/

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Gayatri and Ors. Vs Dr.Vijendra Singh V.C. Narendra Dev Uni.of Agri.and Tech. Fzd.

Atul Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri B.L. Meena as Director Tribal Development Directorate

Rajpati Devi Vs Shyam Narayan Agnihotri Consolidation Officer Purana Gonda

Archana Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Anr.

Shailendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others