Disposed¶19

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

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2026A482/9316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 362 CrPC clerical error correction; Section 482 CrPC inherent powers; omission of accused's name in array of parties and operative portion of judgment; typographical error in judgment; arms licence revealing pending criminal case; FIR No. 71/2005; Case Crime No. 71 of 2005; Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC; Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate; quashing of order dated 26.08.2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; decided 14 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.08.2025 set aside; trial court directed to pass a fresh order treating the omission of the applicant's name as a clerical error, to ascertain whether Case No. 1566/2005 is pending against the applicant, within six weeks. ¶19

Pradeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the omission of the applicant's name from the array of parties and the operative portion of the judgment dated 20.02.2008 constitutes a clerical error correctable under Section 362 CrPC. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The omission of the applicant's name in the array of parties as well as in the operative portion of the judgment clearly falls within the category of a clerical error.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, District - Unnao in Case No. 1566 of 2005 cannot be sustained and is set aside.

¶17

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order treating the omission as a clerical error and to ascertain whether Case No. 1566/2005 is pending against the applicant or not.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia, J. — Application u/s 482 CrPC disposed of. The judgment dated 20.02.2008 in Case No. 1566/2005 (arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2005, Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, PS Bighapur, District Unnao) omitted the applicant's name from the array of parties and from the operative portion, although the entire trial was conducted simultaneously against all four accused and the applicant's statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The omission surfaced when the applicant applied for an arms licence. The trial court's order dated 26.08.2025 rejecting the applicant's Section 362 CrPC application for correction — on the view that the omission was not a clerical or arithmetical error — was set aside. The Court held the omission clearly falls within the category of a clerical error and directed the trial court to pass a fresh order accordingly, after ascertaining whether Case No. 1566/2005 is pending against the applicant, within six weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9316 of 2025

Pradeep Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : O.P. Tiwari, Ashish Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, District - Unnao in Case No. 1566 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2005 under Sections - 323, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Bighapur, District - Unnao as well as may order for implementation of necessary correction in impugned order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, District - Unnao in Criminal Case No. 1566 of 2005.

¶11

The facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged against the applicant and three other accused persons, being FIR No. 71/2005. After investigation, Charge Sheet No. 27/2005 was filed against all four accused persons, including the applicant. Subsequently, the trial court proceeded simultaneously against all the accused, including the applicant, in Case No. 1566/2005, wherein the statement of the applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thereafter, judgment was pronounced in the said case on 20.02.2008. However, in the array of parties, the name of the applicant was missing, and even in the operative portion of the judgment, the name of the applicant was not mentioned.

¶12

Later, when the applicant applied for grant of an arms licence, it was

¶13

A482 No. 9316 of 2025

¶14

¶15

revealed that a criminal case was shown as pending against him. Consequently, the applicant moved an application under Section 362 of the CrPC seeking correction of the typographical error in the judgment dated 20.02.2008. The said application was rejected. The trial court held that since the name of the applicant did not appear either in the array of parties or in the operative portion of the judgment, the same could not be corrected in view of the bar contained under Section 362 of the CrPC, as such correction did not fall within the category of clerical or arithmetical errors.

¶16

Considering the order on record, as well as the fact that the entire trial was conducted simultaneously against all four accused, that the statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, and that the victim had turned hostile against all the accused, the omission of the applicant’s name in the array of parties as well as in the operative portion of the judgment clearly falls within the category of a clerical error.

¶17

In view thereof, the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, District - Unnao in Case No. 1566 of 2005 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order treating the omission as a clerical error. However, the trial court shall ascertain whether Case No. 1566/2005 is pending against the applicant or not.

¶18

The said order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from today.

¶19

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶20

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶21

January 14, 2026

¶22

V. Sinha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

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

Syed Monish Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Irfan @ Mohd. Irfan Khan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shailendra Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Basanti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Sarita Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another