Alamgir Ansari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25551 of 2025

Alamgir Ansari

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Manava Nand Chaurasiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

2.Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash ex parte judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur in Misc. Case no. 4/12 of 2012 (Alamgir Ansari vs. Mahesh Bhadauriya & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1100 of 2008 under sections 147, 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 304A of IPC, PS- Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, whereby learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur accepted the Final Report no. 14/09 dated 05.06.2009. Further prayer has also been made to remand the matter before learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur for taking fresh decision.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that brief facts of the matter derives that applicant was posted as Junior Engineer at Electricity SubStation, Sumerpur at the time incident i.e. on 7.7.2008. On the said date, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 along with 10-12 persons reached at the substation and started beating applicant and other employees and destroyed the feeder and set the same ablaze. An employee namely Mubarak Ali who came forward to extinguish the fire but he succumbed to the burn injuries. On account of said incident, applicant lodged FIR bearing Case Crime no. 1100 of 2008 against the accused persons. After conclusion of investigation, final report was submitted in favour of accused persons before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur who vide order dated 24.10.2009 issued notice to applicant calling him for filing protest petition

¶10

NA528 No. 25551 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

but since applicant was transferred from Sub-Station Sumerpur, Hamirpur to Chitrakoot, therefore he could not receive the notice. Meanwhile, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur transferred the aforesaid case to the court of learned Special Judge (D.A.A), Hamirpur who also issued notice to applicant but he could not receive the same owing to his transfer. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 30.8.2013, learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur accepted the final report without perusing the material available on record which has been challenged through instant application.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contended that it is mentioned in the order dated 30.8.2013 that notice has been served upon applicant but it is case of applicant that he has not made any signature over the notice issued from learned concerned court. It is next submitted that impugned order dated 30.8.2013 is against material available on record and has been passed without application of judicial mind hence the same is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application.

¶15

After having rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that it is apparent that notices had already been served upon the informant as mentioned in the order dated 30.8.2013 and thereafter final report which has been submitted after conduction of detailed inquiry has already been accepted by learned court itself. There is no cause of action arises in favour of the applicant who performed his duty as an employee of Electricity Department and it is admitted that whatever incidence occurred as per the narration of the FIR was inside the Sub-Station of Electricity Department wherein applicant was posted at relevant point of time. The matter which has been instituted in shape of FIR was not the personal matter but it is the case which has been registered at the behest of Electricity Department and as such once the notices have been served upon the Department itself, it hardly matters whether the signature has been made by the applicant or not? In view thereof, no prejudice is caused to applicant with the impugned order dated 30.08.2013 and the same cannot be interfered at

¶16

NA528 No. 25551 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

this stage.

¶19