Allowed

Santosh Kumar Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024CRLA/1669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging an order in Session Trial initiated on an FIR lodged by a District Judgeship employee. Finding the FIR lodged without proper court permission constituted misuse of position, the court quashed the proceedings and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was allowed; the order dated 11.01.2024 was set aside, and the Session Trial proceedings were quashed.

Santosh Kumar Sahu and Another vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148754

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1669 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Sahu And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suman Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

It is apparent from the office report that notice has already been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 either in person or through counsel till today.

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred for challenging the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai in Session Trial no. 05/2024 (State vs. Santosh Kumar Sahu & another) initiated on the basis of impugned charge sheet dated 10.01.2024 arising out of Case Crime/FIR no. 0459 of 2023 through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai in pursuance to sections 353, 384, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶9

Specific query has been made through learned counsel appearing for High Court who informed that no specific approval or permission has ever been sought for lodging FIR against the appellants which is related to the normal functioning of the Court concerned and no complaint has ever been preferred at the behest of the appellants against any of the employee of District Judgeship of Jalaun at Orai.

¶10

On the basis of the arguments raised by learned counsel for appellants and the material available in the records which crystal clearly shows that the instant case is the misuse of position of opposite party no. 2 who specifically belongs to scheduled caste community but FIR has been lodged under the capacity of employee of the Judgeship of Jalaun at Orai, if he was having some problem with the conduct of any Advocate, matter has to be

¶11

first reported to the concerned learned Judge and thereafter for seeking proper permission for lodging FIR specifically in connection to disturbing smooth conduction of court duties but the same has not been done by opposite party no. 2, practice adopted by opposite party no. 2 is against the conduct of employee rendering service of District Judgeship and the same has to be checked at this stage by way of seeking proper explanation from him that under which circumstances, if the matter which has been narrated in the FIR has not been explained or brought to the notice of the learned court concerned.

¶12

Response regarding query as made through order dated 28.08.2024 apprised by Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for High Court is taken on record.

¶13

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order dated 11.01.2024 is hereby set aside and entire proceeding arising out of Session Trial no. 5 of 2024 (State vs. Santosh Kumar Sahu & another) are hereby quashed.

¶14

The instant appeal stands allowed accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Shaswat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Sahu and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mayank Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jang Jeet @ Jagjeet Singh and 8 Others vs State of Up and Another

Radha Kishan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Chaurasia@Jogerndra vs State of U.P. and Another

Premchandra Jaiswal @ Nirala Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and Another

Atmaram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another