Disposed¶14

Sachin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2025CRLR/336/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur, J.; Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2025; Sachin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and another; BNSS S. 438, S. 442, S. 173(4); challenge to Magistrate's direction to register FIR on insurer's complaint; Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.; arson allegations (Naptha accelerant, DVR tampering, Google timeline); fire claim Rs. 7.89 crores; police report found allegations false; interim stay of proceedings pursuant to order dated 18.02.2025; notice to opposite party no.2; order dated 26.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: notice issued to opposite party no.2 (steps within a week) and all proceedings pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2025 stayed till the next date of listing; no final determination on merits. ¶14

Sachin Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 336 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Sachin Vikram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Kudesia,Vikas Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondent.

¶6

By means of the present criminal revision U/S 438 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanghita read with Section 442 BNSS, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case No.92 of 2025 (Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sachin Vikram Singh), where the learned Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 173 (4) of the BNSS has directed the police to register the FIR against the revisionist.

¶7

It has been submitted by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is the partner of the firm M/s. Krishna Vision Energy Innovation LLP situated at Sandila Industrial Area Phase-II, District Hardoi, manufacturing lead-acid battery since 2019. It has been stated that a fire took place on the night of 17.12.2023 at 02:45 AM, for which an information was immediately given to the police authority under Dial 112 Emergency Service at 02:45:50 AM. In the said fire, the entire goods and stocks of the company were destroyed. It has further been stated that the revisionist had taken an insurance policy from the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., namely, Universal Sompo Bharat Laghu Udyam Suraksha Policy having Policy

¶8

No.2124/69986665/ 00 /000 having validity from 11.04.2023 to 10.04.2024 for which the premium amount of Rs.99,946/- was paid and the some insured was Rs.3,00,00,000/- for stock in process and Rs.3 crores for battery manufacturing and related items and finished stock for Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The revisionist had duly informed the insurance company about the said incident, who had appointed a surveyor to examined the cause of fire and loss incurred therein.

¶9

The revisionist, on the other hand, had submitted a claim for Rs.7.89 crores, including GST but during the investigation, opposite party no.2 found that there was some Naptha, which is a fire accelerant was responsible for the fire and further it was reported that the nature of the fire was not natural and further the presence of the revisionist was also found close to the site of incident through the Google timeline and even the Digital Video Record (DVR) was found to be tampered and accordingly, had made a complaint to the police to investigate the said matter. As no investigation has taken place, the respondent had moved an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. In order to verify the correctness of the allegations, an enquiry was directed to be ordered through the police and according to the police report submitted to the Court, they found all the allegations levelled by the insurance company to be false and found that the said criminal proceedings have been initiated by the insurance company only in order to avoid liability towards the revisionist. In the impugned order, the trial court had only reiterated the contents of the complaint casting doubts upon the role of the revisionist in the said fire and has directed lodging of the first information report. It has been submitted that the first information report has been directed to be registered merely on the basis of the complaint without examining any witness and

¶10

even from perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be deciphered as to whether any offence is made out under the BNSS or not. There is no mention of the proposed section under which the investigation has to take place and consequently, it has been submitted that the proceedings initiated by means impugned order are nothing except an abuse of process of the court. Criminal proceedings cannot be said into motion insuch a cavalier passion without there being any substantial material to indicate commission of any offence.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the the revision and submits that he may be granted time to file counter affidavit.

¶12

In light of the above, issue notice to opposite party no.2.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, proceedings pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2025 shall remain stayed and all proceedings pursuant to the said order shall also remain stayed.

¶15

[ Alok Mathur,J. ]

¶16

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 KR

¶17

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

Sachin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Smt. Pushpa Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Akash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vijay and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Uma Shanker and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Indar Yadav (in Aadhar Rajindrar) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others