Disposed¶12

Mohit Tomar @ Sonu v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025CRLP/5508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

History sheet closure/quashing; Regulation 228 U.P. Police Regulations criteria; Mohit Tomar @ Sonu; P.S. Pilkhua (District Ghaziabad/Hapur); Superintendent of Police, Hapur; fresh representation; three-week filing window; three-month decision timeline; audience to stakeholders; Faisal @ Vaish Siddiqui v. State of U.P.; Aftab Alam v. State of U.P.; writ disposed without deciding merits; Allahabad High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Hapur within three weeks; Competent Authority to consider it on merit, accord audience to stakeholders, and decide expeditiously, preferably within three months; merits not adjudicated by this Court ¶12

Mohit Tomar @ Sonu vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner does not come under the criteria prescribed under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, so that history sheet No.119/A (P.S. Pilkhua) is liable to be quashed/closed, with the petitioner entitled to indulgence similar to that granted in comparable writ petitions (Faisal @ Vaish Siddiqui; Aftab Alam)

¶10

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending; it stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Hapur

¶12

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner moves such representation within three weeks, the Competent Authority is expected to consider it on merit

¶13

Key takeaways

The Competent Authority must accord audience to the parties having stake in the matter and only thereafter decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within three monthsratio¶13
The Court expressly did not advert to the merits of the case; the directions are procedural only and issue 1 (closure of the history sheet under Regulation 228) remains undecidedratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anil Kumar-X, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2025 (Mohit Tomar @ Sonu v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.), decided 24.4.2025: Petitioner sought quashing and closure of history sheet No.119/A opened at P.S. Pilkhua, contending he does not meet the criteria under Regulation 228, U.P. Police Regulations, and relying on analogous orders in Faisal @ Vaish Siddiqui (Crl. Misc. W.P. No.3355 of 2021, order dt. 7.2.2024) and Aftab Alam (Crl. Misc. W.P. No.9074 of 2022, Division Bench judgment dt. 4.3.2024). Without adverting to the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police, District Hapur; if filed within three weeks, the Competent Authority is to consider it on merit, accord audience to stakeholders, and decide expeditiously, preferably within three months. The cited precedents were referred through counsel's submissions and were not adopted as this Court's holding.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63335-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5508 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohit Tomar @ Sonu Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State respondents.

¶7

Present writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner with following prayer:-

¶8

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash history sheet No.119/A of the petitioner in Police Station Pilkhua, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondents authorities to close the history sheet No.119/A of the petitioner in Police Station Pilkhua, District Hapur within stipulated period."

¶10

This much is contended that the petitioner does not come under the criteria prescribed under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations and as such the impugned history sheet is liable to be closed. It is also submitted that in similar circumstances this Court has accorded indulgence vide order dated 7.2.2024 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3355 of 2021 (Faisal @ Vaish Siddiqui v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the petitioner being on similar footing is also entitled for similar indulgence. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated 4.3.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9074 of 2022 (Aftab Alam v. State of U.P. & Ors.).

¶11

Mr. G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents very fairly conceded the fact that in case petitioner moves a fresh application at the earliest before the Competent Authority, definitely the same would be considered expeditiously.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. The writ petition stands disposed of asking the petitioner to move a fresh representation

¶13

ventilating his grievance before the respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Hapur. In case any such representation is moved by the petitioner within three weeks, we hope and trust that the said representation would be considered on merit by the Competent Authority, who must accord audience to the parties having stake in the matter and only thereafter decide the said representation expeditiously, preferably within three months. Suffice to indicate that the Court has not adverted on the merits of the case.

¶14

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 VKG

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Tomar @ Sonu v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Tomar @ Sonu v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Chandrashekhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tahir and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amrendra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amarjeet Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Prasad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others