Allahabad High Court
Ram Bhual Nishad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188848
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24608 of 2025
Reserved on 06.10.2025
Delivered on 28.10.2025
Ram Bhual Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Manoj Kumar, Vimlendu Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. FIR of the present case was lodged by Sunil Kumar Gupta, the Arms Clerk who is public servant and as on his behalf notice has been received by the State therefore separate notice has not been issued to him and after hearing the counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State, the instant application is being disposed off finally.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2020 and cognizance order dated 11.04.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 4108 of 2023 (State Vs. Ram Bhual Nishad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur.
Brief facts of the case
4. FIR of the present case has been lodged on 07.02.2020 by Arms Clerk (opposite party no.2) on the direction given by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur against applicant under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
5. According to the FIR, case of applicant was pending before District Magistrate Gorakhpur for cancellation of his arms license but during pendency of the case it was revealed that license No. 3912 which was license of DBBL Gun was issued to one Bechu Yadav S/o Mahendra Yadav on 19.07.1996 and however above named Bechu Yadav had died but by making forgery in the documents, applicant is using the license No. 3912.
6. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against applicant. After submission of the charge-sheet court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant. Hence the instant application.
Argument advanced on behalf of applicant
7. Learned counsel for applicant submits, applicant is sitting Member of Parliament (M.P.) and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.
8. He further submits, as per prosecution, applicant by making forgery in the documents was using the license No. 3912 of DBBL Gun, which was actually issued in favour of Bechu Yadav but applicant never committed any forgery and cheating and in fact license No. 3912 has been duly issued to him.
9. He further submits, even during investigation Investigating Officer could not collect any evidence which can suggests that applicant after the death of Bechu Yadav committed forgery in the documents and started using his arms license No. 3912.
10. He further submits, from the case diary, which has been annexed along with instant application however it reflects, during investigation Investigating Officer received the certificate from the concerned armed office which suggests that in the original arms register disputed license No. 3912 of DBBL Gun was issued to Bechu Yadav but during investigation Investigating Officer could not collect any evidence, whether as per the record of arms office the alleged license No. 3912 was ever issued in the name of applicant or not.
11. He further submits, actually license No. 3912 was issued to the applicant on 23.02.1996 and it appears, subsequently same license number has been allotted to Bechu Yadav on 22.07.1996 and when Bechu Yadav died then his arm i.e. gun has been deposited in the authorized shop, therefore, this fact could not be earlier revealed but when it was revealed that actually license No. 3912 has been issued to two different persons i.e. to the applicant and Bechu Yadav then he has been made accused in the present matter without any evidence of forgery and cheating as Bechu Yadav had been died and applicant was M.P. from rival political party. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer intentionally did not collect any evidence whether license No. 3912 has ever issued to applicant or not.
12. He further submits, merely on the ground that the license No. 3912 was issued to Bechu Yadav it cannot be said that applicant after the death of Bechu Yadav by making forgery in the documents started using it unless and until there is evidence that license No. 3912 has never been issued to the applicant and applicant committed forgery in the documents.
13. He further submits, there is absolutely no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant committed the alleged offences of cheating and forgery but in spite of that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and court concerned also took the cognizance.
14. He next submits, therefore, charge-sheet submitted against applicant and proceedings pending against him are bad and both are liable to be quashed.
Submission advanced on behalf of State
15. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that there is ample evidence that after the death of Bechu Yadav applicant started using his arms license No. 3912 and therefore it cannot be said that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are not made out against him.
16. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer found that the arms license No. 3912 was issued in the name of Bechu Yadav on 19.07.1996 and from the statement of shop owner where DBBL Gun of Bechu Yadav having license No. 3912 was deposited it also reflected that license No. 3912 was in the name of Bechu Yadav.
17. He further submits, actually license No. 3912 was never issued in the name of applicant and applicant after the death of Bechu Yadav started using the same by committing cheating and forgery but he could not dispute, during investigation Investigating Officer did not collect any evidence whether license No. 3912 has ever been issued to applicant or not.
18. Learned AGA also could not dispute, except the fact that license No. 3912 was issued to one Bechu Yadav and applicant was using the same there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant committed forgery or cheating in the documents relating to arms license No. 3912 however he submitted, as applicant by illegal means was using the license therefore it cannot be said that he is innocent.
19. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, it cannot be said that alleged offences are not made out against applicant and therefore, the instant application is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed.
Conclusion and analysis
20. Applicant by way of instant application has challenged the charge-sheet filed against him and proceedings pending against him relating to offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
21. The law is settled that if from perusal of the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie alleged offences are not made out against an accused then this Court should quash the charge-sheet and proceedings pending against him. (See: State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426)
22. As per prosecution, arms license No. 3912 was issued to Bechu Yadav and after the death of Bechu Yadav applicant by making forgery in the documents stared using license No. 3912, therefore, it is to analyse that whether from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are made out against the applicant or not.
23. From the record, it reflects, during investigation however it was revealed to the Investigating Officer that alleged arms license No. 3912 was issued in the name of Bechu Yadav but from the entire case diary, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant application, it could not be reflected that during investigation Investigating Officer could collect any evidence that the alleged license No. 3912 was never issued to the applicant. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the State, any evidence in this regard could not be brought on record.
24. Further, from the counter affidavit filed by the State it reflects, the alleged license No. 3912 was issued to Bechu Yadav on 19.07.1996 and applicant in the affidavit has made specific averment that on 23.02.1996 the alleged arms license No. 3912 was issued to him and same was being renewed time to time and he filed the license as Annexure-12 to the affidavit, therefore, unless and until Investigating Officer during investigation could collect evidence that on 23.02.1996 license was never issued to the applicant it cannot be said that after the death of Bechu Yadav he started using his license No. 3912.
25. Further, from the entire material available on record it could also not be reflected that there is any evidence on record which can suggest that applicant committed any cheating and forgery in any documents and it appears, as according to the prosecution the license No. 3912 was in name of Bechu Yadav and applicant was using the same therefore it has been presumed that applicant by committing cheating and forgery was using it but in view of this Court in absence of evidence of cheating and forgery against the applicant no presumption can be drawn against applicant. The law is settled, in criminal law no presumption can be drawn against an accused on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
26. Therefore, considering the entire material available on record this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that prima facie offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are not made out against the applicant and therefore in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Bhajan Lal (supra), proceedings pending against applicant and charge-sheet filed against applicant are bad and are liable to be quashed.
27. Accordingly, charge-sheet filed against applicant and proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
28. The instant application stands allowed.
(Sameer Jain,J.) October 28, 2025 AK Pandey