Arvind Maurya and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5252 of 2024

¶3

Arvind Maurya And 30 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And Another	Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, Anurag Shukla, Pankaj Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Abhishek Singh, Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

1. On 28.08.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶10

""1. Heard and perused the record.

¶11

2. On 27.08.2025, the following order was passed:

¶12

"On 13th of August, 2025, the following order was passed: "Learned Counsel for the State submits that the matter may be fixed for some other date so as to verify the fact as to whether there is any endorsement made in the summoning order. List/put up this case on 22.08.2025. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to send the record of Case Crime No. 276 of 2023.

¶13

The Senior Registrar of this Court shall inform this order to the trial court concerned."

¶14

In compliance of the order aforesaid, the true copy of the record is placed before this Court. From perusal of the summoning order in true copy of the record, is apparent that the date i.e. 30th of April, 2024 is very well mentioned in the uper side of the order as well as beneath the signature of the Presiding Officer, whereas the certified copy of the order, which is appended alongwith the application and issued under the authority of the learned trial court, is evident that no date is mentioned over there. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is abundantly clear that there is something behind the curtain and for unveiling the same, it is essential to reach to the conclusion. List/put up this matter tomorrow i.e. 28.08.2025. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing."

¶15

3. In compliance of the order dated 13.08.2025, true photostat copy the record is placed before this Court.

¶16

A482 No. 5252 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

4. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the order of taking cognizance and issuing summons is signed by learned Civil Judge, J.D., F.T.C. (Woman), Hardoi and date in the upper side of the order is mentioned as 30.04.2024 and beneath the signature of the Presiding Officer, the date is also mentioned as 30.04.2024.

¶19

5. From perusal of the certified copy of undated order passed in Criminal Case No.276/2023, appended with the application, as Annexure-1, it is apparent that no date is mentioned in the order. The certified copy of the order is issued under the authority of the learned trial Court on an application dated 14.05.2024 and that seems to be a genuine document.

¶20

6. Question arises that once the copy of the order, which was issued in the month of May, 2024, does not bear any date, under what circumstances the true photocopy which is sent after the order passed by this Court, finds mention of the date, on the upper side of the order and beneath the signature of the Presiding Officer as 30.04.2024.

¶21

7. Prima facie, this is a very serious matter.

¶22

8. The District Judge Hardoi is directed to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report before this Court within a period of 10 days from today.

¶23

9. List/put up this matter on 11.09.2025 at 2.15 p.m.

¶24

10. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate, learned counsel for High Court who has been called upon by this Court, shall assist by seeking instructions from the District Judge, Hardoi, on the next date.

¶25

11. The interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of listing.

¶26

12. Name of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra shall be reflected as counsel for the High Court.""

¶27

2. In-compliance of the order aforesaid, the instructions are placed by Ms Ritika Singh, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotracord. The District Judge, Hardoi has also sent a report dated 06.09.2025 while taking the explanation of the Presiding Officers concerned. While narrating the whole scenario in the report dated 06.09.2025, he has mentioned that the Presiding Officer, Lavlesh Kumar was on training at JTRI, therefore, the Presiding Officer, incharge took cognizance and has signed on the ordersheet, whereas, due to inadvertence, he left to put the dates over the order of cognizance and admittedly, the same was mentioned by the Clerk, namely Ajit Gautam, who was a newly appointed official in year 2023 and under the impression that the case was taken up and the order is passed and the Officer has left to put the dates, he has mentioned the date.

¶28

3. It is submitted that no prejudice is caused to any of the parties and putting

¶29

A482 No. 5252 of 2024

¶30

3

¶31

the signature can be their regularity, but cannot be illegally, which could affect the interest of the applicants. Further submitted that a departmental inquiry is initiated against the Clerk, Ajit Gautam, which is pending consideration.

¶32

4. The explanation given by the Presiding Officers and the report thereof, as covering letter dated 06.09.2025, is satisfactory. The matter is hereby closed.

¶33

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶34

6. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the impugned summoning order in respect of petitioner no. 1 to 5 in offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 354(Kha), 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C. and as well as to quash the impugned summoning order in respect of remaining petitioners in offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 and 120B IPC passed by the learned Judicial Civil Judge(J.D.) F.T.C. (Mahila), District Hardoi in Case Crime No. 276 of 2023 Police Station- Sandila, District Hardoi and as well as to quash the chargesheet vide its no. 299 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023 and as well as supplementary chargesheet vide is no. 299A/2023 dated 09.10.2023.

¶35

7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicants and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicants is nothing but harassment.

¶36

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

9. After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicants to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶38

A482 No. 5252 of 2024

¶39

4

¶40

10. Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

¶41

11. In view of aforesaid, the applicants are permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶42

12. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of . September 11, 2025 Mayank

¶43

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶44

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vaibhao Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pankaj Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Afaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijai Shanker and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.