Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 915 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Shukla

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saryu Prasad Tiwari, In Person Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Singh

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Shukla, the applicant (in person), as also Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.I for the State, and perused the record.

¶10

The applicant herein has filed the present application with the following main relief:

¶11

"For the facts and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by District & Session Judge, Ayodhya in Criminal Revision No. 130 / 2023 (CIS Registration No. 150 / 2023), Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & another."

¶12

It is case of the applicant that an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by him on 18.01.2021. The Magistrate called a report on the application and the Police has submitted a report on 21.01.2021 in which it has been admitted that for the same incident First Information Report (F.I.R.) under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, has been lodged against the applicant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate called report on 04.02.2021 from

¶13

A482 No. 915 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

the Police Station Incharge without registering the F.I.R. In pursuance of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya, Police submitted report on 21.02.2021 alongwith statement of one Avdhesh Sharma. The Chief Judicial magistrate, Ayodhya, called report on 17.03.2021 for C.C.T.V. Footage. The Police submitted report on 08.03.2021. Thereafter, applicant moved application before the Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, on 29.05.2021 for lodging first information report and for granting permission for prosecution. Vide order dated 22.07.2021, the Chief Judicial magistrate, Ayodhya, treated the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as 'Complaint Case' and also directed to record the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, statements of Seema Shukla and Lal Ji were recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya, summoned opposite party No. 2 under Sections 323, 325 and 342, I.P.C. with a detailed order in Complaint Case No. 4977 of 2021, vide order dated 11.07.2021.

¶16

The applicant challenged the aforesaid order in Revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. before the District & Sessions Judge, Ayodhya. Objections were filed and the revision filed by the applicant was allowed on the ground that there is no permission taken by the competent authority under Section 197, Cr.P.C., therefore, matter has been remanded back and the impugned summoning order was set aside.

¶17

It has been submitted by the applicant (in person) that the order impugned is without application of mind. Once the offence has been committed by opposite party No. 2 in personal capacity, then it cannot be said that he did the offence in official capacity.

¶18

There is no other ground taken by the applicant appearing in person.

¶19

On the other hand, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the Chief Minister was to visit to Ayodhya and the barricading was done. The opposite party No.2 was Sub Inspector at the time and place of incident, i.e., Janki Mahal Tiraha and was entrusted to see the law and order situation. The applicant

¶20

A482 No. 915 of 2024

¶21

3

¶22

tried to cross the barricade, for which in official duty the opposite party No. 2 took preventive measure and F.I.R. was also lodged by him under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. It is also informed that chargesheet is also filed against the applicant in the case. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has also submitted that prior sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is required in the case and the revisional court has discussed this legal aspect and thereafter remanded the matter to the Magistrate, therefore, there is no illegality, infirmity in the order passed by the revisional court.

¶23

Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.I is also in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶24

The record reveals that case was registered against the applicant on 16.11.2020 in P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya, at Case Crime No. 0803 of 2020 under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. While discharging duty the opposite party No., 2 had taken preventive measure, because the Chief Minister had to visit Ayodhya at the relevant point of time. The revisional court has considered the legal aspect and has observed that prior sanction envisaged under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is required, therefore, he set aside the order and remanded the case to the trial court to pass fresh order. The settled legal position has been discussed by the Revisional Court and it is only a remand matter, therefore, at this juncture this court does not want to interfere for the simple reason that once the matter is remanded, applicant will have opportunity to put forth his submission(s). There is no need to interfere in the impugned order. The application is accordingly

¶25

dismissed .

¶26

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶27

February 12, 2026 A.Nigam

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Om Prakash and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Jitendra Nath Singh Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rantej Bahadur Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pihu Enterprizes Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Suresh Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another