Disposed

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024A482/9504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a complaint case and orders summoning them and issuing NBW under Section 82 Cr.P.C., claiming protection as public servants and improper warrant issuance without service. The court found the matter requires consideration and stayed effect of the impugned orders qua the applicants pending further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of summoning order dated 14.05.2009 and NBW/Section 82 Cr.P.C. order dated 26.09.2024 qua applicants only; matter listed for week commencing 27.01.2025.

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9504 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Jaiswal And Another

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramchandra Gupta,Sonali

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ateeq Khan

¶7

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party No.1.

¶9

2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.255 of 2024 : Yunus Ansari vs. Nijam Ashraf and others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) IVth/learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad and impugned order dated 26.09.2024 whereby N.B.W. and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the applicants as well as impugned summoning order dated 14.05.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad.

¶10

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are retired government employees. The applicant No.1 at the relevant point of time was a Class-I government servant, who was working as Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad whereas the applicant No.2 was clerk in his office.

¶11

4. His next submission is that various orders

¶12

passed by the applicant No.1 were assailed by the opposite party No.2, however, the orders passed by applicant No.1 were upheld by various courts. He has further submitted that being public servants, the applicants could not have been proceeded at the behest of opposite party No.2 in view of provisions contained in Section 197 Cr.P.C.

¶13

5. His further submission is that it is no more res integra that for constituting an offence of conspiracy there has to be prior meeting of mind between two persons. The entire complaint is bereft of any such instance of meeting of mind between the present applicants as well as the other co-accused persons except casual and bald allegations of connivance or conspiracy in the entire complaint filed by the opposite party No.2.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn attention of this Court to the entire ordersheet of this case. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the learned trial court has issued Non Bailable Warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the present applicants without ensuring that whether summons and bailable warrants issued against the applicants were ever served upon them or not ? They were not even declared to be absconder in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits that issuance of Non Bailable Warrant as well as process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the present applicants is nothing but a gross misuse of process of Court which were issued against the settled law on the issue, hence, the same deserve to be quashed.

¶15

7. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has vehementally opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶16

8. Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, on the other hand, has also opposed the aforesaid prayer. He has brought to

¶17

the notice of this Court that a petition filed under Section 482/378/407 No.2545 of 2021 : Dr. Meraj Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home & Anr. was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner/applicant to approach the learned trial court to move appropriate application for bail, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021. However, he has also been unable to dispute the fact that present applicants were government servants at the relevant point of time and also that applicants were not the beneficiaries of alleged act of fraud etc.

¶18

9. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as upon perusal of entire record, the matter requires consideration insofar as the applicants are concerned.

¶19

10. List this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the week commencing 27.01.2025 .

¶20

11. Till the next date of listing, the impugned summoning order dated 14.05.2009 as well as order of issuance of N.B.W./82 Cr.P.C. dated 26.09.2024, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants No.1, 2, namely, Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Shyam Lal only.

¶21

12. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed to have any effect on proceedings of Complaint Case No.255 of 2024 insofar as other accused persons are concerned.

¶22

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Shubhankar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Kunti Prajapati and Ors. Vs Smt. Nootan Prajapati @ Roshni @ Taaniya and Anr.

Madhukar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko

Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Madhukar Singh Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko