Ram Kewal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 04.02.2023 as well as summoning order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 84504 of 2023, arising out of F.I.R. No. 606 of 2022, under Sections 279, 338, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per prosecution case, the alleged incident is of 11.11.2020, for which, the F.I.R. bearing No. 424 of 2020 was lodged by private respondent, under Sections 427, 338, 279 I.P.C., P.S. Indira Nagar, District Lucknow East. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that at about 04.00 p.m. on the date of incident, the driver of the vehicle UP32 EE 2511 hit the motorcycle of private respondent, due to which, he suffered injuries. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time of alleged incident, i.e., at 04.00 p.m., the applicant was discharging his duties at Chief Minister's residence, where his duty hours were from 08.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m.

¶12

During the course of investigation of the aforesaid case, statement

¶13

A482 No. 4337 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

of informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, the Investigating Officer failed to examine the registration certificate from the office of R.T.O. Thereafter, the investigation of the said F.I.R. was transferred to P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow and the number of the F.I.R. was changed as F.I.R. No. 606 of 2022. Thereafter, the registered owner of the said vehicle was searched by the Investigating Officer in the month of January, 2023, wherein it was found that the said vehicle was registered in the name of one Prem s/o Sudarshan r/o Seevan, Jagdishpur, Siwan, Lucknow, mobile No. 8736980320. On telephonic conversation with him, the Investigating Officer called him and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, he stated that it came into his knowledge in the said telephonic conversation with the Investigating Officer that one accident took place from his vehicle No. UP32 EE 2511 on 11.11.2020, in pursuance to which, F.I.R. No. 606 of 2022 (supra) was lodged. The registered owner-Prem also stated that aforesaid vehicle was purchased by him from Nasreen Fatima w/o Mohd. Altaf r/o K426/349, Wazeer Bagh, III, Lucknow through the manager of Shanu Auto Service, namely, Irfan Ali, mobile No. 9628132071. It is lastly stated by him that neither he was driving the car on the date of incident nor was the owner of the vehicle at that time.

¶16

Thereafter, Investigating visited the Manager of Shanu Auto Service, namely, Mohd. Irfan Ali, who informed that he is doing the business of sale and purchase of vehicles and since Prem s/o Sudarshan was in need of a vehicle, he contacted Mohd. Irfan, on which, he facilitated to purchase the aforesaid vehicle through Ganga Car Sales. Later on, the Investigating Officer visited the house of Nasreen Fatima w/o Mohd. Altaf r/o 426/349 Wazeerbagh-3, Lucknow, who was the registered owner of the said vehicle at the time of alleged incident and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In her statement, which is mentioned in Parcha No. C.D. 9 dated 21.01.2023, Nasreen Fatima informed to the Investigating Officer that she was the registered owner of the vehicle in question on the date of incident,

¶17

A482 No. 4337 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

but she handed over the vehicle to M/s. Ganga Car Sales on 28.10.2020 and on the date of incident, the vehicle was in the ownership of M/s. Ganga Car Sales.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that during the course of investigation, statement of Mohd. Altaf, husband of Nasreen Fatima was also recorded, in which, he stated that Nasreen Fatime died on 24.11.2019. It is also submitted that in the statement of owner of M/s. Ganga Car Sales, namely, Ram Bahadur, which is mentioned in Parcha 11 dated 11.01.2023, he developed a case against the applicant. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant never worked in M/s. Ganga Car Sales. While emphasizing his argument that the entire prosecution story against the applicant is fabricated by the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Nasreen Fatima on 21.01.2023, but her husband stated to the Investigating Officer that Nasreen Fatima died on 24.11.2019. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that all these facts can be raised by the applicant before the trial court at the appropriate stage. He also prays for some time to file counter affidavit.

¶22

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, including the statements annexed with the application, it is evident that as per the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the statement of a dead person, Nasreen Fatima was recorded in the year 2023, however, as per the statement of her husband, she died on 24.11.2019.

¶23