Manoj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Law and Justice Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1793

Court No. - 16

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 156 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Law And Justice Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aklavya,Chandan Prasad,Prashant Shekhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J .

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 01.10.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lucknow, in Complaint Case No. 128366/2023 (Annexure No. 1). The petitioner further seeks to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 128366/2023 titled "Sadhu Saran Chaubey Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner issued an order on 31.07.2023 removing respondent no. 2 from the panel of Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh, in discharge of his official duties. It is further submitted that the order was passed in good faith.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

The impugned order dated 01.10.2024 is extracted below:-

¶11

" पततवललआददशतररपसत हहई।पररवतदलकदववदतनअधधवकतककबतलबलपरपपवरममसतनतजतचतकतहह। पररवतदलसतधपसरनचचबददतरतपसत पररवतदववपकलमनकजकतमतरधससहकदववरदअसतररतधतरत-190 (1) (बल) तवठदधतरत-499/500 भत०दद०सस०पसत वकयतरयतहह।

¶12

पररवतदलदतरतपररवतदपतमममतखयरपसदयहकरनवकयतरयतहहवकपररवतदल/ पतररककततकतललननरर पतधलकतअधयकआजमरढएवसततकतललनअधधशतषलअधधकतरलदतरतयतवचकतससखयत-2726 (एसएस) / 2013 ममनररपतधलकतपररषददआजमरढककओरसदपहरवलकरनदहदततवकतलतनतमतदतधखलकरतयतववपकल धझनकपयतदववअनयदतरत 2014 मममतननलयउचचनयतयतलयकदसमबतब।दतधखलअवमतननतयतवचकत ससखयत 953/2014 1. भलपतररदतरतनररपतधलकतपररषदआजमरढदतरतअधधवकतवनयतकवकयदजतनदकद उपरतनतपहरवलकक।धझनछतयतदववअनयदतरतएकअनयअवमतननतयतवचकतससखयत-455/2023 यकधजत वकयतरयत, धजसममववपकलककववपकलससखयत-3 कदरपममपककतरबनतयतरयतमतननलयउचचनयतयतलय दतरतवनररतअवमतननतनकवटसपतपकरनदकदबतवजपदभलमतननलयउचचनयतयतलयदतरतपतररतआददशकत

¶13

अनतदरकरतदहहएववपकलनतकसवयसउपससरतहहआऔरनहलपतररर/ पररवतदलककअपनतअधधवकत वनयतकदवकयत।इसपकतरपररवतदलउकअवमतननतयतदममववपकलककओरसदअधधवततनहहरतएवसवतटपर उसकतककईदतवयतवनहहरत।वदनतसक 04.07.2023 ककमतननलयउचचनयतयतलयदतरतववपकलकदववरद जमतनतलयवतरणटजतरलवकयदजतनदकतआददशपतररतवकयतरयत।ववपकलदतरतपररवतदलककसमबकधधतएक आददशपततसक 860-न०पत०प०आ०/2023-24, वदनतसवकत 31,07,2023 ममअमयतरवदतभतषतककधलखतदहहए उसककपवतरधजसटटतरमतननलयरतचचनयतयतलय, खणडपलय, लखनऊएवसमतननलयअधयकन०पत०५०, आजमरढककभलपदवषतवकयतरयत।धजसकदकतरणपररवतदलककसतफसतररलछववधपवमलहहईहह।पररवतदल दतरतववपकलककवदनतक 26.09.2023 ककववधधकनकवटसभदजलरयलजकउसकददतरतवदनतक 30.09.2023 ककपतपककरयल, परनततउनकददतरतववधधकनकवटसकतककईजबतबनहहवदयतरयतऔरनहलकवतपपवतर वकयत।पररवतदलदतरतपतररनतककरयलहहवकववपकलअवभयतकककतलबकरदणडववधतनससवहततककधतरत 499/500 कदअसतररतअधधतमदणडसददसणडतवकयतजतयद।

¶14

पररवतदलसतधपसरनचचबददतरतअपनदपररवतदकदसमररनममसवयसककधतरत-200 दणडपवकयतससवहततमम परलवकतकरततरयतहहतरतअपनदसशपरबयतनममकरनवकयतहहवकमदरतपसजलयनससखयतय प ल 2635/2008 हह।ममपदशदसदअधधयततऔरमतननलयउचचनयतयतलय, लखनऊममवनयवमतरपसदववधध वयवसतयकररहतह ह ।मदरतए.आर. नस.0046 हह।ममसतफसतररलछवववतलतअधधषततह ह ।ववपकलअवभयतक मनकजकतमतरधससहवदनतसक 31.07.2023 पनतकससखयत-860/१०पत०५०आ०/2023-24 वनररतवकयत, धजसममउनहहनदमतझदवनधयतदकषत-रकवपतवकयतहहऔरउकपतजकपवतधलवपअवभयतकनदसलवनयररधजसटटतर मत०उचचनयतयतलय, लखनऊपलठवअधयकनररपतधलकतपररषदआजमरढककभलभदजतहह, धजसमम अवभयतकमनकजकतमतरधससहनदधलखतहहवकआपदतरतवकयतरयतयहककतयलतपरवतहलकतदकतकहह। पतधलकतककछववधपवमलहहईहहजबवकममनतकअवमतननतयतवचकतससखयत-455/2023 ममअवभयतकमनकज कतमतरधससहकतकभलअधधवकतरतऔरनहलआजह ह औरनहलउनहहनदमतझदउकअवमतननतयतवचकत सखयत-455/2023 कद।पहरवलहदततअपनतअधधवकतवनयतकवकयतरत।धलधखतरपसदइसपकतरववपकल मनकजकतमतरधससहनदवमथयतलतसकनलरतकरमतझदअपमतवनतवकयतहह, धजससदआमजनमतनसममहमतरलछवव रत.रतबहहईऔरमतनहतवनहहहई।ममनदवदनतसक 26.09.2023 ककववपकलमनकजकतमतरधससहककजररएपसजलककत ठतकएकववधधकनकवटसभदजतजकवकउनहमवदनतसक 30.09.2023 ककपतपहकरयलहह, परनततउनहहनदउक नकवटसकतककईजबतबआजतकनहहवदयत।

¶15

पररवतदलदतरतअपनदपररवतदकदकरनकदसमररनममधतरत-202 दणडपवकयतससवहततकदतहतमनलष बरनवतलएवसरतजदशकतमतरधससहककपरलवकतकरतयतरयतहह।

¶16

पररवतदलकददतरतधतरत-202 दणडपवकयतससवहततकदअसतररतपरलवकतकरतयदरयदसतवकयहदतरतअपनदबयतनह ममपररचतदलकदकरनहकतपपणरतयतसमररनवकयतरयतहह।

¶17

पररवतदलकदबयतनअसतररतधतरत-200 दणडपवकयतससवहततएवसपररवतदलकददतरतपरलवकतकरतयदरयदसतवकयह कदबयतनअसतररतधतरत-202 दणडपवकयतसवहतततरतपततवललपरउपलबधदसततवदजलसतकयहकदसमयक अवलककनसदववपकल / अवभयतकमनकजकतमतरधससहकदववरदधतरत-500 भत०८०सस०कतअपरतधकतररत वकयदजतनदकदधलएववचतरणहदतततलबवकयदजतनदयकगयहह।

¶18

आददश

¶19

ववपकल / अवभयतकमनकजकतमतरधससहकदववरदधतरत-500 भत०दस०सस०कदअपरतधकदववधतरणहदततजररयद समनतलबवकयतजतयद। पररवतदलपहरवलअनदरसपतहकरद, सपचलरवतहतनदतधखलकरद।ततपशचततदवदनतक 05.11.2024 कदधलए अवभयतकउपरककककसमनजतरलहक।"

¶20

A perusal of the order shows that the applicant in spite of receiving notice of the contempt petition and in disobedience of the High Court's order, has neither appeared before the Court nor appointed respondent no. 2 as his counsel. The complainant was not the counsel for the applicant/respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he was under no obligation to appear in the contempt case. Due to the applicant's non-appearance, the High Court issued bailable warrants, for which the applicant is solely responsible. However, the language used in the letter dated 31.07.2023, while disengaging opposite party no. 2 from the

¶21

panel, is derogatory and tarnishes the reputation of opposite party no. 2, who is a practicing advocate of this Court. In para 7 of the complaint, it is also alleged that the applicant is habitual in disobeying the orders passed by this Court.

¶22

It has been further opined that the applicant was impleaded by name in the contempt petition and since the vakalatnama was provided to the advocate/opposite party no. 2, he had no authority to represent him before the High Court. The applicant neither provided a copy of the notice for the contempt petition to opposite party no. 2 nor appeared before the High Court without furnishing any valid reason. Consequently, bailable warrants were issued.

¶23

Exception 7 of Section 356 of BNS is extracted below:-

¶24

Exception 7: It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

¶25

A perusal of the aforesaid exception indicates that if an order is passed in good faith regarding the conduct of a person, by somebody who is having an authority conferred by law or arising out of lawful contract, then that would not amount defamation. The question whether the order dated 31.07.2023 has been passed by the applicant in good faith or not is to be decided in trial. At the stage of summoning the accused, only a prima facie case is to be considered, which has been done by passing the impugned order dated 01.10.2024. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order.

¶26

The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶27

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 R.C.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Law and Justice Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Law and Justice Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kapoor Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Mohd. Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sahdeo Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Girish Chandra Patwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another