Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha and Sri Mohd. Taha Chishti, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajit Singh, learned State Counsel.

¶12

The present application has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶13

"(i) quash the impugned Charge-sheet No. 1, dated 28-07-2023 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.2612/2024 (State Vs. Sarfaraz alias

¶14

2

¶15

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶16

Munni), arising out of the Case Crime No./FIR No.23/2023, U/s-147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC, at PS- Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur. (ii) quash the impugned Cognizance/Summoning order dated 07-082023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur taking cognizance against the applicant of the impugned Charge-sheet No. 1, dated 28-07-2023, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, MP/ MLA, Lucknow alongwith entire subsequent proceedings.

¶17

(iii) quash the order of framing of charges vide order dated 20.01.2024 passed by learned Court of Special Judge M.P./ M.L.A., ADJ 3, Ghazipur, under sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.

¶18

(iv) take on record and consider the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 04.09.2025 in criminal misc. Bail application No. 2827 of 2025 titled as Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko., wherein it has been categorically held that "the first information report of the incident was already registered with the police in the year 2001 itself; it does not appear proper that a second first information report of the same incident was registered after 22 years."

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 15.7.2001 at 12:30 p.m., an F.I.R. No.251 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427 I.PC. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur was lodged on the written complaint of Mukhtar Ansari against Brijesh Singh, Tribhuvan Singh, Anil Singh and 15-16 unknown persons. As per the complainant, assailant attacked on them with the fire arm weapons and in the said incident, P.S.O of

¶20

3

¶21

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶22

complainant, namely, Ramchandra Pradeep and Rustam @ Babu were killed and one assailant, Manoj Rai, also died in the shot fired by Constable Ramchandra Pradeep in his self defence and seven persons, namely, (i) Ramesh Ram, (ii) Isarail, (iii) Mohd. Shahid, (iv) Sarfaraz @ Munni (applicant), (v) Babu (Ataur Rahman), (vi) Surendra Sharma, (vii) Ghaus Mohiuddin, received fire arm injury. He also submitted that investigation of the aforesaid crime was started and parcha no.1 was prepared on 15.7.2001, in which, it is mentioned that on 15.7.2001 at about 12:45 p.m., the S.H.O. of P.S. Mohammadabad, Ghazipur received telephonic information that sudden firing took place in between two groups at Usri Chatti. The police immediately rushed to the spot and on the way, M.L.A., Afzal Ansari and M.L.A. Mukhtar Ansari, who were carrying the injured persons informed that Brijesh Singh and his associates had opened fire, upon which firing also took place from the side of complainant in self-defence. Upon reaching the spot, the police found a Tata Safari with bullet marks, one dead body on the road, and a truck allegedly used in the incident, indicating that the firing had occurred suddenly and spontaneously between the two sides. The Tata Safari vehicle (No. UP-32-AJ-786) parked in the premises of the Primary Health Centre was inspected. It was found that the P.S.O. of M.L.A. Mukhtar Ansari, namely, Ram Chandra Pradeep, Head Constable, who were seated on the rear seat, had died due to gunshot

¶23

4

¶24

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶25

injuries. The vehicle had numerous bullet marks on the both sides and front windshield, with around 44 firing marks and shattered glass. A large amount of blood pool was found on the rear seat. During inspection, 11 empty cartridges of 9 m.m. carbine were recovered from the floor, which were stated to have been fired by the deceased. The vehicle was taken into police custody and sent to the police station for investigation. Medico legal examination of the injured person and post mortem of the deceased person were conducted. Recovery of carbine of the assailant, deceased - Manoj Rai was also shown in parcha no.18. Umesh Chandra Rai (fatherin-law of the deceased/assailant - Manoj Rai) as well as Nisha Rai identified the deceased through photograph, which is mentioned in parcha no.6, thereafter, their statements were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted on 16.10.2001. As the accused persons were so influential, therefore, the trial could not be conducted even after 25 years.

¶26

3.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that injured witness, Isarail and other eye witnesses of F.I.R., moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur stating therein that the accused persons and Brijesh Singh are continuously giving life threat and pressurizing them to alter their statements, thereafter, applications were also given to the learned trial court

¶27

5

¶28

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶29

on 06.04.2017 and Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur on 22.02.2019, but no action was taken, then they filed Writ C No.11301 of 2019 (Isarail & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2019 with the direction to the respondent no.3 to provide security to the petitioners to safeguard their life and liberty. The application given by Ramesh Ram and Isarail for reinstatement of police protection in trial of F.I.R. No.251 of 2001 was taken on record vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Ghazipur. During the proceedings of sessions trial of F.I.R. No.251 of 2001, learned trial court recorded the threat perception of the applicant in its orders dated 10.01.2023 and 23.01.2023. Statements of Ramesh, Isarail and Tauqeer were recorded before the trial court as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. In place of giving proper support in conclusion of trial of the aforesaid case, hindrance was being created.

¶30

3.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on 20.01.2023, F.I.R. of case in question, i.e., F.I.R. No.23 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mohammdabad, District - Ghazipur was lodged on the written complaint of Shailendra Kumar Rai (father of the deceased, Manoj Rai - assailant of the F.I.R. No.251 of 2001) against Mukhtar Ansari, Surendra Sharma (driver), Shahid, Gaus Mohiuddin,

¶31

6

¶32

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶33

Kamaal (all eye witnesses and injured eye witnesses of F.I.R. No.251 of 2001) with the allegation that complainant's son, Manoj Rai was taken away from his home in Buxar, Bihar by Surendra Sharma, Shahid, Gaus Mohiuddin and Kamal, and on the next night, two motorcyclists came and informed the complainant that his son had been killed after being falsely projected as an assailant in the Usri Chatti incident. However, after registering the second F.I.R., the police never visited the actual place of occurrence at the complainant's residence in Buxar, Bihar, nor prepared any site plan of that location, instead they shown incorrectly Usri Chatti, Ghazipur as place of occurrence. During the course of investigation of the F.I.R. No.23 of 2023, police also never took the complainant to Usri Chatti. After about six months of registering of F.I.R. of the case in question, in parcha no.45, the investigating agency prepared site plan showing the place of incident, paternal home of Mukhtar Ansari on pointing of Ramesh Ram and Isarail, who were the injured witnesses of F.I.R. No.251 of 2001 and their deposition was also recorded before the trial court as P.W.2 & P.W.3, respectively.

¶34

3.3. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that first time, name of the applicant, Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni was cropped up in the present case on the basis of statements given by Ramesh Ram and Isarail on 13.03.2023, thereafter, statements

¶35

7

¶36

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶37

of Ramesh, Isarail and Tauqeer were recorded during the course of investigation of F.I.R. No.23 of 2023, who implicated the applicant and led to his arraignment as an accused in the present case is contrary to their testimonies in the trial of F.I.R. No.251 of 2001. The prosecution alleges that Manoj Kumar Rai was taken on a vehicle bearing registration number U.P.32-AT-0786. A perusal of parcha No.30, prepared on 18.04.2023, reveals that during the investigation, the police found that vhicle bearing registration number U.P.32-AT-0786 was manufactured in the year 2002 and registered on 07.01.2003, therefore, said vehicle could not become a part of the crime in question, therefore, entire prosecution story is demolished. He lastly relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 , Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 , Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 and Rajendra Bihari Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2265 and submitted that second F.I.R. for the same incident is not permissible.

¶38

4. Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted

¶39

by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that F.I.R. of the case in

¶40

8

¶41

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶42

question was filed on 20.01.2023 by father of the deceased, Manoj Rai, who alleged by the accused persons that he was assailant. Deceased, Manoj Rai was taken away from his house and thereafter, he was killed and a fabricated case was prepared by the main accused of the crime in question and on the basis of ornamented complaint, F.I.R. was lodged and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. The F.I.R. of case in question is not filed on the same facts as F.I.R. No.251 of 2001 was filed but the correct version of facts mentioned in F.I.R. in question. He does not dispute the fact that statements of Ramesh, Isarail, and Tauqeer were also recorded in the present case as they were alleged witnesses in the F.I.R. No.251 of 2001, and they narrated the correct version in the statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. in the present case. He also submitted that Inderjeet Yadav eyewitness clarified the number of vehicle U.P.32-AJ-0786 in place of U.P.32-AT-0786. He also submitted that F.I.R. of the case in question is unchallenged, charge sheet was already submitted by the Investigating Officer and after framing of charge, complainant, Shailendra Kumar Rai was already examined as P.W.1. He further submitted that second F.I.R. is not on the same facts but on correct facts, the complainant of the F.I.R. No.251 of 2001 is accused in the F.I.R. No.23 of 2023 alongwith his associates and now trial has already been commenced and one witness has been examined & cross

¶43

9

¶44

A482 No. - 10509 of 2025

¶45

examined, therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court is required in the form of summary trial.

¶46

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is undisputed fact that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on 20.01.2023 but the same was not challenged by any of the named accused. Admittedly, the involvement of the applicant was found on the basis of statement of witnesses, charge sheet has already been filed and after framing of charge, complainant - Shailendra Kumar Rai has already been examined and cross examined. It is evident that in both the F.I.R.'s, there are different version of allegations, as the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant clearly reveals that second F.I.R. is not barred, in case, version of the case is different and in the present case, complainant of the first F.I.R. has been made accused in the second F.I.R., and the trial of the case in question is going on. In such circumstances, no interference is required at this stage, accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed .

¶47

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶48

April 20, 2026 Gaurav

¶49

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Mulayam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Deepika Verma Thru. Her Mother Smt. Samnukh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Nagma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Nibbar @ Baggey vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 5 Others