Dismissed¶11

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2025A482/4338/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S. 482 Cr.P.C./S. 528 BNSS quashing petition dismissed; summoning order dated 16.02.2021 and charge sheet under S. 406 IPC upheld; Nazir's statement did not show vehicle parked in department on 15.01.2018; FIR alleged theft while vehicle driven by applicant, absent from CCTV footage; Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench, Rajnish Kumar J., 2.6.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:34220.

What did the court decide?

It is apparent from the record that the F.I.R. alleged that the vehicle (Bolero, Registration No. UP 32 EN 8523) attached with Sales Tax Office, Gomti Nagar was stolen on 15.01.2018 at 6.00 P.M. while the vehicle was being driven by the applicant-Sandeep Srivastava, and that the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV Footage. ¶10

Sandeep Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 16.02.2021 and the charge sheet filed against the applicant are sustainable, the applicant's counsel having submitted that the charge sheet was filed without considering the evidence and material on record and that both were liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Nazir's statement (annexed as Annexure N0.4 to the petition) does not indicate that the applicant had parked the vehicle in the department on 15.01.2018. The Nazir stated that after leaving the Officer, the applicant had asked as to whether there is any work or not, and on the next date the vehicle-Bolero was found missing; thus, he has not stated that the vehicle was parked in the department.

¶10

Key takeaways

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the documents placed on record, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived and not tenable; accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., now 528 B.N.S.S., was dismissed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Rajnish Kumar, J.) — Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. (now S. 528 B.N.S.S.) by Sandeep Srivastava seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 16.02.2021 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow and the charge sheet under S. 406 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 11960 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Sandeep Srivastava, arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2018, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow), concerning alleged theft on 15.01.2018 of the Bolero (Regn. No. UP 32 EN 8523) attached with Sales Tax Office, Gomti Nagar. Counsel for the applicant urged that the charge sheet ignored the evidence and material on record and that the Nazir's statement showed the vehicle was parked in the department; counsel also relied on the applicant's allowed S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. application (order dated 28.05.2018). The Court held that the F.I.R. alleged the vehicle was stolen while being driven by the applicant, who was not seen in the CCTV footage; that the Nazir's statement does not indicate the applicant parked the vehicle in the department on 15.01.2018; and that the contention was misconceived and not tenable. Petition dismissed (order dated 2.6.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34220

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4338 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Mishra,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Kuldeep Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶7

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now Section 528 B.N.S.S, 2023 has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II^nd , Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 11960 of 2021, State of U.P. vs. Sandeep Srivastava arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2018, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow as well as the charge sheet.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant without considering the evidence and material on record of the case. He further submits that the vehicle in question used to remain in the custody of the department and the Nazir has also stated in his statement that the vehicle was parked in the department on the alleged date of the incident. He further submits that the applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of an F.I.R. at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, which was allowed by means of the order dated 28.05.2018. But the report could not be lodged because the F.I.R. was already lodged in the aforesaid case. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned summoning order and the charge sheet are not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA submits that F.I.R. has been lodged specifically stating that the vehicle in question was not brought by the applicant on the date of incident and he has also not seen in the CCTV Footage. He further submits that Nazir has nowhere stated that the vehicle was parked by the applicant. Thus, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record, it is apparent that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the Vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No. UP 32 EN 8523 was attached with Sales Tax Office, Gomti Nagar. On 15.01.2018 at 6.00 P.M., it was stolen. While the vehicle was being driven by the applicant-Sandeep Srivastava and the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV Footage. Nazir, whose statement is annexed as Annexure N0.4 to the petition, does not indicate that the applicant had parked the vehicle in the department on 15.01.2018. He stated that after leaving the Officer, the applicant had asked as to whether there is any work or not and on the next date, it was found that the vehicle-Bolero was missing. Thus, he has not stated that the vehicle was parked in the department. The charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 406 I.P.C. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived and not tenable.

¶11

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 2.6.2025 Raj

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home 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

Smt. Laxmi Singh Thru. Husband Satendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Amit Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ziya-Ul-Haq Vs Mohd. Irfan and 2 Others

Smt. Uma Shishodiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Chandra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Sarojani and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another