Dismissed¶23

Ramdhani v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025CRLP/1005802/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition dismissed; certiorari and mandamus refused; complaint case dismissed; no witnesses produced under Section 202 CrPC; false implication alleged against then SHO Balram Mishra and police personnel; petitioner discharged under Sections 395/397 and 412 IPC; Sessions Trial No. 495/2003; Case Crime No. 159/2000, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh; Chief Judicial Magistrate Pratapgarh; Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011; Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 9; Ramdhani v State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Saurabh Lavania; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:39472.

What did the court decide?

Upon consideration of the facts and material on record, the Court found no force in the instant petition. ¶20

Ramdhani Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh dismissing complaint Case No. 5519/2006, and the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011, should be quashed and the Magistrate commanded to decide the complaint afresh. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

Upon consideration of the facts and material on record, the Court found no force in the instant petition.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The trial court's judgment dated 03.06.2006, by which the accused including petitioner-Ramdhani were discharged, contains no finding based upon which it can be inferred that false evidence was placed before the trial court so as to implicate the petitioner.

¶21

Key takeaways

No witness was produced in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C., which is required under the law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.), order dated 10.7.2025 - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1005802 of 2013 (Ramdhani v. State of U.P.): dismissed. The petitioner, discharged by trial-court judgment dated 03.06.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 495/2003 (arising from Case Crime No. 159/2000, Section 394 IPC, P.S. Raniganj, Pratapgarh) under Sections 395/397 and 412 IPC, had lodged a complaint dated 06.12.2006 impleading then S.H.O. Balram Mishra and other police personnel alleging false implication; the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh dismissed the complaint (Case No. 5519/2006) on 16.08.2011, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, dismissed the revision (Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011) on 31.07.2013. Holdings: the discharge judgment contained no finding from which false evidence implicating the petitioner could be inferred, and no witnesses were produced as required by Section 202 Cr.P.C.; accordingly, neither impugned order was quashed and no mandamus for fresh consideration was issued.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39472

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1005802 of 2013

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramdhani

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Pandey,Illigible,Ram Gopal,Veer Raghav Chaubey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as the perused the record.

¶9

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶10

"i. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside impugned order dated 16-08-2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pratapgarh in Case No. 5519/2006, Ramdhani Vs. Balram Misra as well as order dated 31 July 2013 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.9, Pratapgarh passed in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011 contained as annexure no.1 & 2 to this writ petition.

¶11

ii. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh to consider and decide Case No. 5519/2006, Ramdhani Vs. Balram Misra and others afresh."

¶12

Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner/Ramdhani was implicated in the Case Crime Number 159/2000, under Section 394 IPC, registered on 05.10.2000 at 10.50 A.M. at Police Station- Raniganj, DistrictPratapgarh. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted the charge sheet in Case Crime Number 159/2000 and thereafter, the matter was committed to the court of sessions wherein it was registered as Sessions Trial Number 495/2003. The trial court proceeded against the accused namely Gazi @ Amarnath Patel, Daya Shankar @ Pappu, Ghanshyam Dubey, Khunti @ Ramasre, Panna Lal Patel, Munna @ Dayaram, Sardar @ Ashok Kumar, Ramdhani (petitioner), Baccha and Murli after framing of charges under Sections 395/397, 412 IPC.

¶13

After considering the evidence on record (oral and documentary), the trial court discharged the accused namely Gazi @ Amarnath Patel, Ghanshyam Dubey, Khunti @ Ramasre, Panna Lal Patel, Munna @ Dayaram, Sardar @ Ashok Yadav, Murli, Baccha and Ramdhani (petitioner) for the offence under Section 395/397 IPC. Ramdhani (petitioner) was also discharged for the offence under Section 412 IPC. Another accused namely Daya Shankar @ Pappu was also discharged for the offence under Sections 395/397, 412 IPC.

¶14

It is apparent from the judgment dated 03.06.2006 that the accused Gazi @

¶15

Amarnath Patel, Ghanshyam, Khunti @ Ramasre were in custody and therefore, they were released and Ramdhani (petitioner) and others were on bail.

¶16

After the judgment dated 03.06.2006, the petitioner-Ramdhani preferred an application/complaint dated 06.12.2006 impleading therein Balram Mishra (then S.H.O.), Vikrama Dubey (Head Constable), Niyaz Ahmad (Head Constable), Bhim Mishra (Constable), Santosh Mishra (Constable) and other police personnel.

¶17

To support the allegations made in the application/complaint dated 06.12.2006, the petitioner-Ramdhani appeared before the Magistrate concerned and his statement was recorded as required in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶18

However, no witness was produced, though, required in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C., as appears from the impugned order dated 31.07.2013, whereby, Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011 (Ramdhani vs. State) was dismissed, which was filed challenging the order dated 16.08.2011, whereby, the complaint Case No. 5519/2006 (Ramdhani vs. Balram Mishra and 5 others) was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (in short "Magistrate").

¶19

In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant petition has been filed before this Court.

¶20

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as indicated, and material available on record including the judgment of trial court dated 03.06.2006, impugned order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Magistrate, impugned order dated 31.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011 and the copy of the complaint/application dated 06.12.2006, this Court finds no force in the instant petition. It is for the following reasons:-

¶21

(i) The trial court passed the judgment dated 03.06.2006, whereby discharged the accused persons including the present petitioner-Ramdhani for want of appropriate evidence in support of prosecution case and there is no finding in this judgment based upon which it can be inferred that false evidence was placed before the trial court so as to implicate the petitioner-Ramdhani.

¶22

(ii) No witness was produced in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C., which is required under the law.

¶23

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed .

¶24

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Arun/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramdhani v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhani v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others

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

Similar cases

Abhishek Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suraj Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Urmila Devi vs Sri Sanjeev Gupta, Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Krishna Mohan Tripathi vs Superintendent of Police, C.B. I. / a. C. B. Lko.

Lalji vs Sri Arvind Kumar, Executive Engineer, Sichai Khand, Irrigation Deptt., Pratapgarh