Disposed¶15

Manjeet Tanwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025A482/40759/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:11815; APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 40759 of 2024; Manjeet Tanwar v. State of U.P. and Another; Rajeev Misra, J.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; direction for expeditious disposal of final report; Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020; Case Crime No. 640 of 2019; Section 376 I.P.C.; P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura; delayed FIR 28.08.2019; police report 26.01.2020 u/s 173(2); protest petition not filed; Bhagwant Singh (1985) 2 SCC 537 (referred); three-month timeline from certified copy; order dated 23.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Court concerned/below to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020 (arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019, Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura) with all expedition, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order.

Manjeet Tanwar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should direct the Court below to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020 (the final report arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019, Section 376 I.P.C.) within a stipulated period.

¶8

Court's answer

Having heard counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. and upon perusal of the record, the Court found that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The application is disposed of finally with a direction to the Court concerned to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C.

¶15

Key takeaways

The direction to decide the misc. case is to be carried out with all expedition, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 71 (Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.) — Application U/S 482 No. 40759 of 2024, decided 23.1.2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:11815). Applicant Manjeet Tanwar, described as a named and charge-sheeted accused, moved the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for expeditious decision of Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020 — the final report/police report dated 26.01.2020 submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. after investigation in Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 (delayed FIR dated 28.08.2019, Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, in which he was the solitary named accused). Counsel urged (relying on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537) that although the informant had the right to file a protest petition, none had been filed in over four years, and the applicant's appointment in Central Bank of India remained subject to the pending misc. case. The State opposed but could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions at that stage. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending, the Court disposed of it with a direction to the Court concerned to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020 with all expedition, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11815

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40759 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manjeet Tanwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Singh,Shobhit Pratap Singh,Vineet Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Shobhit Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant-Manjeet Tanwar, who is a named and charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to Court below to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred in between 01.12.2018 to 13.08.2019, a delayed FIR dated 28.08.2019 was lodged by prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation. Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of is established against named accused. He accordingly opined to submit the final report. Resultantly, Investigating Officer submitted the final report/police report dated 26.01.2020 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. As such, Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020,

¶11

arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura came to be registered.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant contends that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C. there is no right with informant to lodge a protest petition against police report. However, the said right is now available to the first informant by reason of the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police And Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537 . As such, a right has now accrued to the first informant to file her protest against police report submitted by Investigating Officer. However, inspite of the fact that period of more than 4 years has rolled by no protest petition has been filed by first informant/prosecutrix to the same. Applicant has already appointed as Security Officer in Central Bank of India but his appointment is subject to the proceedings of above-mentioned misc. case. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the leaned counsel for applicant that interest of justice shall be served in case, a direction is issued by this Court to Court below to decide aforementioned misc. case with all expedition within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶13

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.

¶15

Accordingly, this application is disposed off finally with a direction to Court concerned to decide Misc. Case No. 728 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 640 of 2019 under Section 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura with all expedition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Imtiyaz

¶17

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manjeet Tanwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Tanwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases