Allahabad High Court
Daya Ram @ Daya Ram Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49550 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 861 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Sukhveer Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for setting aside the order dated impugned dated 6.2.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.977 of 2025 'State of U.P. Vs. Vishal and Ors.' arising out of Case Crime No.692 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 117(2) and 309(6) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as charge sheet dated 30.11.2024 filed by the police as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 23.9.2024 at about 11:00 A.M. accused persons came on the property of the applicant and started abusing him, and on the exaggeration of one of the co-accused, Pratyush, other accused persons started beating him and dis-mentaled teenshed and threatened not to come here again. Thereafter, applicant went to the police station, where he was directed to sit alongwith other injured persons but neither they were sent for proper medical aid nor for medico legal examination, their complaint was also not accepted. Later on, they were allowed to go back, thereafter, medical examination of the applicant and other injured persons was done on 24.9.2024 in the Community Health Center, Akbarpur, however, at the same time, on the written complaint of the accused persons, F.I.R. 585 of 2024 was lodged against the applicant and other associates on 25.9.2024 at 18:47 Hrs. under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 118(6) BNSS at Police Station - Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Investigation was initiated in the aforesaid case and on the basis of fabricated medico legal report of informant in above notes case charge sheet was submitted. Applicant also moved an application under Section 173 (4) of BNSS, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate, then F.I.R. of the applicant was registered against accused persons as Case Crime No.692 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 117(2) and 309(6) BNSS, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar was lodged on 22.11.2024 at 13:09 Hrs.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Investigating Officer was in collusion with the accused persons of the present case and prepared C.D. No.1 on 22.11.2024 by inspecting the place of occurrence and recording the statement of informant, thereafter, only with the intention to favour the accused persons, he also mentioned the statement of independent witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar & Prateek Chaudhary, who were associates of the accused persons with the averment that no such incident has taken place, in which, applicant and his associates were victim. On 24.11.2024, C.D.No.2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer, in which, he has written the statement of three alleged eye witnesses, namely, Jagdish Prasad, Ram Bahadur and Omkar, who supported the case of the applicant but the Investigating Officer tried to save the accused persons. On 27.11.2024, C.D. No.3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of the accused, Pratyush Kumar Chaudhary under Section 180 of BNSS and came to the conclusion that Pratyush Kumar Chaudhary was not found in the crime in question.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on 30.11.2024, Investigating Officer issued notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS to other accused persons for recording statements under Section 180 of BNSS by fixing date 2.12.2024 but the case diary reveals that statement of other accused persons, namely, Vishal, Pradeep Kumar and Yuvraj Chaudhary were recorded on 30.11.2024 without giving any reason that why the date for recording of the statements of aforesaid accused persons was preponed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that presence of the accused persons is not discussed in the G.D. of the concerned police station but the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most superficial manner only with the intention to save the main accused Pratyush Chaudhary, thereafter, an application for further investigation was filed by the applicant before the learned Magistrate annexing the pen drive but the same was rejected without considering the materials provided by learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside and direction may be issued for further investigation.
7. Sri Sukhveer Singh, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no illegality in the investigation and in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
8. Sri Susheel Pandey, learned A.G.A. also submits that in case, any material is found during the course of trial, then charge can be altered at any stage, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
9. Mr. Keshav Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar, connected through video conferencing states that it is disappointing that once notice was issued for recording of the statement of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS by fixing a date, then in normal circumstances, it cannot be preponed and in case, it is preponed, then proper reasoning must be discussed in the case diary. He also informs that preliminary enquiry has already been ordered in this regard.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A., going through the contents of the relevant record placed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer present before this Court, it is evident that no proper reasoning is given in the case diary that under what circumstances recording of the statement of accused persons under Section 180 BNSS was preponed, it is also admitted by the officer, who is present today that presence of the accused persons, whose statements were recorded on 30.11.2024 their presence is not mentioned in the G.D, it is also evident that pen drive was also placed before the learned Magistrate alongwith other relevant documents but all these evidences were not considered by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that order passed by the learned Magistrate is bad in the eyes of law, therefore, same is hereby set aside.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present application is disposed of.
12. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar is directed to return the complete case diary as well as police report to the Superintendent of Police, Ambdekar Nagar, forthwith.
13. The Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar is also directed to depute some responsible officer for re-investigation considering the C.C.T.V footage as well as other evidences and ensure the submission of police report expeditiously.
August 22, 2025 GauraV/-