Allahabad High Court
Jawahar Lal Vats vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 October, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172248 AFR Reserved on 30.04.2024 Delivered on 25.10.2024 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3981 of 2011 Revisionist :- Jawahar Lal Vats Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Vashishtha,Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Srivastava,Brijesh Sahai(Senior Adv.),C.P. Upadhyaya,Pranshu Gupta,Santosh Tripathi,Siddharth Singhal,Vinay Arora Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Sri Rajarshi Gupta assisted by Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsels on behalf of opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.
Prayer
2. The instant revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 6.9.2011 passed by Ld. ACJM IV th, Meerut in Case No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs. Sanjai Bansal & other) whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the withdrawal application dated 7.5.2010 moved by the Ld. Assistant Prosecuting Officer thereby consenting withdrawal from the prosecution of accused-opposite party nos. 2 &3 in aforesaid criminal case u/s 321 Cr.P.C.
It is also prayed to consequently direct the learned Magistrate to expeditiously proceed with the trial of the aforesaid case against the accused persons and conclude the same within a period of time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit & proper to direct, otherwise the revisionists shall suffer irreparable loss.
And by way of interim measure, it is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation & effect of impugned order dated 6.9.2011 passed by Ld. ACJM IV th, Meerut in Case No. 3901 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs. Sanjai Bansal & other), during the pendency of this criminal revision before this Court.
Brief facts
3. It is the case of the revisionist that on 30.3.2006 at about 10:00 AM, the accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’ along with one unidentified accused person had committed assault by firing upon the revisionist no. 2 as a result of which he received serious firearm injuries on his chest. He was immediately taken to nearby ‘Lokpriya Hospital’ where at he was admitted at around 10:30 AM and subsequently operated upon by the doctors. Revisionist no. 1 i.e. father of the injured-revisionist no. 2, since did not know them before as such he lodged FIR at 11:15 AM at PS Nauchandi in respect of aforesaid incident against 3 unknown accused persons. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime no. 147 of 2006 u/s 307 IPC and verbatim whereof is quoted here-under :-
“नकल तहरीर हिन्दी वादी
सेवा में,
श्रीमान थानाध्यक्ष
थाना नौचन्दी, मेरठ।
महोदय,
निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी सुबह लगभग 10.00 बजे अपने घर के बाहर सड़क पर बाहर जाने के लिए खड़ा था तथा अपने बेटे धनन्जय जो मन्दिर से आने वाला था का इन्तजार कर रहा था। तभी गली के मोड़ पर मेरा पुत्र स्कूटर से आया तभी तीन अज्ञात हमलावरो ने यह कहते हुये कि साला बहुत मुकदमे बाजी करता है अपने हाथो मे लिए कट्टो से मेरे पुत्र को जान से मारने की नियत से गोलिया मार दी हमलावरो को मै सामने आने पर पहचान सकता हूं मेरे शोर मचाने पर वहाँ काफी लोग आ गये तथा बदमाशो को ललकारने पर हमलावर भाग गये। कृपया मेरी रिपोर्ट लिखकर कानूनी कार्यवाही करने की कृपा करे। प्रार्थी sd/- श्री जवाहर लाल वत्स s/o स्व० श्री दुर्गा प्रसाद r/o 18/14 , राजेन्द्र नगर, PS नौचंदी, मेरठ दिनांक 30.3.06
नोट- मै c/c 1506 रनधीर सिंह प्रमाणित करता हूँ कि नकल तहरीर हिन्दी वादी थाना हाजा की चिक पुश्त पर शब्द व शब्द अंकित की गई।”
4. Subsequently, when on 10.04.2006 for the first time, the injured-revisionist no. 2 was examined by the Investigating Officer (in short ‘the IO’) of the said case, he revealed the name of ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal (i.e. accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3) as the assailants who along with one unidentified accused person had assaulted him on the day of incident by firing upon him. It is thereafter that both of them became accused in the Case Crime No. 147 of 2006.
5. Both the accused took the plea of alibi before the IO and finally the IO submitted the final report no. 32 of 2006 on 20.10.2006 in the said case thereby exonerating the aforesaid accused persons from the case. When the said final report reached in the court of learned JM IIIrd, Meerut on 12.12.2006, a Criminal Misc. Case no. 1331/11 of 2006 in his court was registered for judicial disposal of said FR and learned Magistrate directed for issuance of notice to the informant-revisionist no. 2 for making protest.
6. Meanwhile, an order came to be passed on 16.03.2007 by a Division bench of this Court in a pending Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13182 of 2006 which had been filed by the informant-revisionist no. 2 before for seeking direction to the local police for proper & effective investigation of Case Crime no. 147 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC PS Nauchandi, District Meerut. In the said order, this Court had directed the informant-revisionist no. 1 to approach the court of learned Magistrate for making protest against the submission of FR in his case.
7. Informant-revisionist no. 2 appeared and filed his protest petition along with his affidavit on 04.04.2007 against the submission of the FR in the said case and through the petition, it was submitted by the informant-revisionist no. 2 that the conclusion drawn by the IO of the said case in the FR was illegal and patently absurd inasmuch as he could not have accepted the plea of alibi for exonerating the accused persons which was the domain of judicial appreciation only after receiving legal evidence in trial and when statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of revisionist no. 2 was clearly revealing commission of offence under Section 307 IPC against those accused persons, therefore there was sufficient prosecution material to reject the FR and summon them to face prosecution before the court.
8. Thereafter, on 16.04.2007, learned Magistrate rejected the above said FR thereby summoning the accused persons to face prosecution before him. However, meanwhile, the accused persons had approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a SLP No. 2364 of 2007 (which was later converted to regular ‘Criminal Appeal No. 1453 of 2007’) in challenge of the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by this Court on the writ petition of the informant-revisionist no. 1. The said SLP was admitted and later Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order & judgment dated 22.10.2007 set aside both the orders passed by this Court and and also the summoning order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate. In fact, the operative portion of the order dated 16.03.2007 of this Court was taken to be objectionable by Hon’ble Supreme Court since in its view the same was likely to prevent the learned Magistrate to apply his independent judicial mind while deciding the Final Report submitted against the accused persons. Therefore, by upsetting the orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for deciding the Final Report in accordance with applicable law as interpreted and guided for him in the body of the judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
9. On 04.11.2007, the informant-revisionist no. 1 himself filed certified copy of the above said order dated 22.10.2007 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court before the learned Magistrate. As the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate had changed, hence the Criminal Misc. Case No. 1331/11 of 2006 registered previously in the court of Ld JM IIIrd was allotted fresh No. as ‘Criminal Misc. Case No. 3309/9 of 2007’ in the court of Ld JM Ist, Meerut for disposal of FR case and protest petition filed by the informant-revisionist no. 1.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while the judicial proceedings in respect of disposal of FR and protest petition thereon were going on in the court of learned Magistrate, the informant-revisionist no. 1 discovered that on his previous complaint against the Investigating Officer of the case for helping the accused persons in fabricating & supporting their plea of alibi, a departmental enquiry had been ordered and on 19.11.2007, the enquiry officer i.e. SP City Meerut had already submitted his enquiry report finding these Investigating Officers guilty in not properly investigating the case and had recommended departmental punitive action against them and also that in an another enquiry conducted by the ‘Deputy CMO, Rampur’ against the Medical Staff & Doctors of CHC, Milak, Rampur who had helped accused ‘Sanjay Bansal’ in fabricating his admission into said CHC on 29.03.2006 i.e. a day prior to date of incident, the said staff & doctor have been found to be guilty of fabricating the medical record in order to show the admission of accused. Therefore, the informant-revisionist no. 1 through his letter dated 28.01.2008 prayed before ‘DIG, Meerut Range, Meerut’ for recommending further investigating into the instant case by drawing his attention to aforesaid enquiry reports, which had strengthen his case against accused persons.
11. The IO who undertook further investigation concluded with the previous observations made in the case by different Investigating Officers that the accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence as their alibi was established and that they have been falsely implicated by the injured-injured revisionist no. 1. Besides aforesaid conclusions, the IO also forwarded and submitted his complaint dated 28.04.2008, in the court of learned Magistrate dealing with FR case, against the informant ‘Jawahar Lal Vats’ and his injured son Dhananjay seeking their prosecution under Section 211 IPC for allegedly filing false criminal case against the innocent accused persons namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’.
12. On the other hand, the father of the accused-opposite party no. 2 & 3 namely ‘R.K. Gupta’ himself on 28.08.2008 approached ‘Secretary Home, UP Govt Lucknow’ and filed before him his written complaint narrating therein that his sons namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’ were falsely implicated by the revisionists by lodging false FIR. However, since their acts also amount to an offence as defined under Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC as such the local police be directed to lodge NCR in those sections against them and investigate the same after seeking formal judicial permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C.
13. The said complaint of R.K. Gupta reached later before SHO, PS Nauchandi through proper channel and whereafter on his direction, surprisingly and quite illegally, an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C on 20.09.2008 was registered giving rise to ‘Case Crime no. 467 of 2008 under Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC, PS Nauchandi, Meerut against the revisionists.
14. The Investigating Officer who was entrusted with investigation of Case Crime no. 467 of 2008 noticed that the FIR of said case could not have been registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C as none of the aforesaid offence were cognizable resultantly the said IO on 24.09.2008 stopped the investigation by noticing the aforesaid discrepancy and observed that a formal judicial permission in terms of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C was needed to undertake any investigation in such cases.
15. Thereafter on 24.09.2008, R.K.Gupta, laid another application before SSP, Meerut praying therein that as his FIR has been wrongly registered for non-cognizable offences, which can only be investigated after seeking formal judicial permission in terms of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C and as such the local police be directed to approach the court of learned Magistrate for moving and seeking aforesaid permission so that his case can be investigated.
16. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that on the above said application dated 24.09.2008, the SHO of PS Nauchandi directed the IO namely ‘SI Kamal Singh’ to do needful yet the said IO did not moved any such application in the court of learned Magistrate for seeking formal judicial permission in terms of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C which he was sure was not likely to be granted as the learned Magistrate was already in the process of deciding judicially the FR submitted by the police, therefore, it appears that the said R.K.Gupta acting under some tacit understanding with the IO of the case, moved yet another application on 18.11.2008 before the SSP, Meerut with the allegations that the IO was not investigating his case properly. On the said application, the SSP, Meerut without ascertaining true facts of the case passed an order on 18.11.2008 itself directing SHO, PS Nauchandi to take stern steps against the accused of the case instituted by Mr. R.K.Gupta.
17. The investigation of the above said FIR lodged against the revisionists continued and charge sheet no. 2 of 2009 dated 06.01.2009 was submitted in the court of learned ACJM Ist, Meerut for seeking their prosecution.
18. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Magistrate quite illegally and ignoring the statutory bar as provided under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the police charge sheet under Sections 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC submitted against the revisionists by his order dated 07.01.2009 thereby summoned them to face prosecution after registering against them formal proceeding of Criminal Case no. 677 of 2009 under Sections 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC, PS Nauchandi, District Meerut (State Vs. Jawahar Lal Vats & other).
19. On the other hand, the proceedings regarding disposal of FR submitted in case instituted by the revisionist no. 1 was still pending therefore, he approached this Court and filed ‘Criminal Misc. 482-Application No. 648 of 2009’ seeking direction for learned Magistrate to decide & dispose of the matter relating to protest petition filed against Final Report No. 32/06 dated 20.10.2006 pending before him expeditiously as the same was pending disposal even after the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.10.2007 passed in the said case. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2009, disposed of the said 482-Application of the revisionist no.1 by directing the learned Magistrate to decide within two weeks the protest petition in relation to FR case.
20. Subsequently, even though Mr.R.K.Gupta, did not have any locus in the case pertaining to protest petition against the above said FR yet they filed an Impleadment Application No. 28576 of 2009 in the above said ‘Criminal Misc. 482-Application No. 648 of 2009 (which was already decided on 23.01.2009 before this Court seeking modification of said order dated 23.01.2009. On his Impleadment Application, this Court passed an order on 05.02.2009 disallowing impleadment however it also directed the concerned Magistrate to club both the cases i.e. the case of protest petition pertaining to challenge the FR filed by the informant-revisionist no.1 and also the case under Section 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC which was also pending in the same court.
21. Finally, learned Magistrate (i.e. ACJM IV th, Meerut) summoned the record of ‘Criminal Case No. 677 of 2009 under Sections, 211, 195, 389, 120-B IPC also before him while deciding the proceedings related to disposal of FR submitted in Case Crime No. 147 of 2006 and protest petition thereon (i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 701 of 2008, which were renumbered in his court) and thereafter, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 11.02.2009 disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the police while submitting FR No. 32 of 2006 dated 20.10.2006 in connection with Case Crime no. 147/06 under Section 307 IPC and took cognizance of offence against the accused persons namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’ by summoning them to face prosecution of said case in his court.
22. Meanwhile both the accused persons namely ‘Sanjay & Ajay Bansal’ approached this Court in challenge of the summoning order dated 11.02.2009 passed against them by learned Magistrate by filing ‘Criminal Misc. 482-Application Nos. 4983 & 6068 of 2009’ in which, this Court issued notices to the revisionist no. 1 and as an interim measure provided that no coercive steps be taken against them.
23. On the other hand, the revisionists also approached this Court to challenge the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the learned Magistrate on the criminal case lodged by Mr. R.K.Gupta by filing ‘Criminal Misc. 482-Application Nos. 8882 of 2009’ in which this Court also directed for not taking any coercive steps against them as an interim measure and all the 482-applications i.e. filed by accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and other filed by the revisionist were directed to be clubbed together for final hearing.
24. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 some how managed to persuade the Government officials to withdraw the prosecution pending against them and the State Government vide its letter No. 724/WC/7-Nyay-5-2009-202/WC/2009 dated 28.1.2010 communicated to the District Magistrate, Meerut their permission for withdrawal of prosecution against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 in the instant case. Where after, the District Magistrate communicated the aforesaid permission, through proper channel to the learned APO in charge of prosecution case against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3 pending in the court of the then learned ACJM Ist, Meerut and finally, on 07.05.2010, learned APO moved his application seeking withdrawal of prosecution. Against the above said withdrawal application, the revisionists had filed their written objections on 04.06.2010. Whereafter the hearing of withdrawal application was taken up by the learned ACJM IV th, Meerut who was of clear opinion that the learned APO has not applied his independent mind over the facts and circumstances of the case and had moved withdrawal application by merely following dictate of State Government. The learned Magistrate was also of the opinion that the learned APO has not apprised him of any legal ground in support of withdrawal from prosecution. All these findings of learned Magistrate were clearly noted by him in his order dated 06.01.2011 passed during consideration of said withdrawal application. By the said order, learned Magistrate asked learned APO to apprise him of his clear stand over the matter. Again on 17.08.2011, learned Magistrate again passed a similar order as passed on dated 06.01.2011.
25. In response to the above said orders passed by the learned Magistrate, learned APO filed another application on 29.08.2011 purporting to be supplemental to his withdrawal application and the revisionists filed their supplementary objections on the same day.
26. Finally, learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 06.09.2011 allowed the withdrawal application moved by learned APO and accorded his judicial consent to withdrawal from prosecution of the instant case pending against accused-opposite party nos. 2 & 3.
Submissions on behalf of revisionists
27. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for revisionist is that on the strength of the interpretation of law governing Section 321 Cr.P.C as enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and cited by the revisionist in support of his contention before this Court what transpires is that in judging validity of the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate permitting withdrawal of prosecution in the instant case, this Court has to examine objectively whether the learned Magistrate, on consideration of material placed before him and having regard to application for withdrawal of prosecution moved by learned APO has accorded its consent on judicial consideration and in that process of consideration whether of not, he has correctly examined following twin judicial conditions:-
1. Whether while moving for withdrawal of prosecution, the learned APO has himself applied its independent mind or was influenced by the order of State Government?
2. Whether grounds put forth by the learned APO in his application seeking withdrawal of prosecution were serving any public cause of justice or were germane to advancement of public justice?
3. Whether the learned Magistrate in granting his consent to withdrawal of prosecution has correctly deliberated and examined on legitimacy of those two grounds?
28. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there was no independent application of mind by learned APO while moving withdrawal application inasmuch as-
Firstly- he failed to objectively assess the material of the cases in arriving over his reason as to how withdrawal of prosecution in the instant case was going to advance the cause of public justice.
Secondly- despite observations made by the learned Magistrate himself on previous two occasions in the same case and over the same withdrawal application vide his orders dated 6.1.2011 & 17.8.2011 to effect that learned APO had not assigned any legal grounds on which the consent for withdrawal from prosecution in terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C could be granted, the learned APO further failed to assign any legal grounds or cause for withdrawal from prosecution through his supplementary withdrawal application dated 29.08.2011. Thus, the learned Magistrate in granting its consent to withdrawal has clearly committed error of law & fact both thereby improperly exercising his supervisory judicial function in terms of Sections 321 Cr.P.C.
Thirdly- at the time when learned APO had moved his very first application seeking withdrawal of prosecution (i.e. on 7.5.2010) the impugned criminal proceedings against the accused persons were already stayed by the interim order dated 16.4.2009 passed by this Court on their 482-Application and thus, he ought to have disclosed this fact having important bearing on the case in his said application. Non-discloser of said fact reveals that the learned APO was selective in laying facts before the learned Magistrate and thus there was no independent application of mind by him.
Fourthly- whereas the learned APO in his application for withdrawal of prosecution stated that final report in the criminal case was filed by the police even after further investigation and that police had filed a challan against the informant and injured of case seeking launch of prosecution against them under Section 211 IPC but what he mischievously and deliberately fails to inform the learned Magistrate though his application was the fact that the FR against the accused Bansal brothers has already been rejected by the very court of learned Magistrate vide his order dated 11.2.2009 who had found more than prima-facie case for trial against them and that they had been summoned to face prosecution in that court. Suppression of such a material and relevant fact having bearing on outcome of judicial consideration over withdrawal of prosecution was pointer to non-application of independent mind by the learned APO in his application and ought to have been so noticed by learned Magistrate while considering granted of his informed consent in terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C in the instant case.
Fifthly- Had there been independent assessment of relevant material made by the learned APO he sure, as being himself possessed with the judicial trained mind, would have noticed that the very foundation of the FIR (dated 20.9.2008 in Re: Case Crime No. 467 of 2008 under Section 211, 195, 120-B IPC) based upon which the withdrawal of prosecution of case of Section 307 IPC against the accused Bansal brothers was being sought was in fact, lodged against them on the written complaint of father of the accused persons (i.e. Bansal brother) and the same was clearly motivated and lodged by the police illegally that too for non-cognizable offences as defined under Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC, which was clearly designed to pressurize & intimidate them. Thus, by suppressing the relevant facts, the learned APO was clearly not acting in good faith or in public interest while seeking consent of the court in withdrawal prosecution against accused persons involved in case of Section 307 IPC and the learned Magistrate also failed to take note of those relevant facts in according his judicial consent to withdrawal.
Sixthly- No objective assessment or consideration of prosecution of material of case relating to the FIR bearing Case Crime No. 467 of 2008 under Sections 211, 195, 120-B IPC was made by the Ld APO and set out in his application seeking withdrawal of prosecution against the accused Bansal brothers. No reason were stated as to how, on the basis of his consideration of that material, he is able to state that the case against the accused Bansal brothers relating to offence of Section 307 IPC can be legitimately said to be false even before any judicial verdict by any criminal court is given after appreciating the evidence thereon. More so, he also failed to take note of the fact that collection of electronic evidence/video recording in form of sting operation allegedly conducted by some tainted media person wherein the injured Dhananjay was claimed to have confessed before said media person that accused Bansal brothers were not involved, was completely tainted and suspicious and was procured, in all likelihood, by these accused themselves after designing the episode with the help of such media person. The noticeable discrepancies in illegally seizing the CD and Camera and sending those to forensic laboratory after fabricating the judicial order of concerned Magistrate have all been revealed to the learned APO had he carefully perused the material of aforesaid FIR of Case Crime no. 467 of 2008. Apart from all, a careful perusal of typed transcript of the alleged conversation recorded between the injured and the so called unverified media person will go to reveal that at no point of time in entire conversation that the injured had stated for himself that the accused Bansal brothers were not his assailants.
29. The instant was an ordinary criminal case involving commission of offence under Section 307 IPC wherein duo accused persons are accused of firing shots upon injured by fire arms thereby causing on his chest and the grievous fire arms injuries and therefore, withdrawal of prosecution of this case involving conflict of interest between two individuals was in no possible way going to advance cause of public justice. Withdrawal was therefore clearly with oblique motive and unconnected with the vindication of cause of any public justice. The learned Magistrate thus failed to notice that there was no legitimacy urged in support of withdrawal of prosecution and it was designed merely as tool of thwarting or shifting the course of law or cause manifest injustice. He, in passing the impugned order, ignored the fact that the learned APO was improperly exercising his executive function in seeking withdrawal from the prosecution in a case involving serious offence of Section 307 IPC, which was clearly an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice with object to favour accused persons who were wealthy, rich and influential enjoying political patronage. The judicial consent granted by the learned Magistrate is therefore completely fallacious in law. The impugned order is likely to be revised and interfered by this Court on this sole ground of law itself.
30. Learned counsel for the revisionist for substantiating his arguments relied upon certain judgments which are as under:
1. MN Sankarayaranan Nair Vs. PV Balakrishnan & ors. (1972) 1 SCC 318
2. Bansi Lal Vs. Chandan Lal & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 421
3. State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra & Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 250
4. Balwant Singh & ors. Vs. State of Bihar (1977) 4 SCC 448
5. Abdul Karim & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. (2000) 8 SCC 710
6. Rahul Agarwal Vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 377
7. Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 10 SCC 380
8. Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
9. HS Bains Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (1980) 4 SCC 631
10. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 7 SCC 378
11. Abdul Rehman & Ors. Vs. KM Anees-ul-Haq (2011) 10 SCC 696
12. Issac Isanga Musumba & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 357
13. Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 768
14. Ramjee Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1987) CrLJ 137
15. Sudha Tripathi Vs. State of MP & Anr. (2019) CrLJ 3993.
Submission on behalf of State
31. Learned AGA rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for revisionist and argued that after registration of FIR of Crime no. 147 of 2006, the matter was investigated properly and thoroughly and after conducting investigation the Investigating Officer found that the involvement of Sanjay Bansal and Ajay Bansal is false whose name was figured by the injured Dhananjay Vats in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation the final report was submitted. It is also important to mention here that during the course of investigation, investigation was transferred to various Investigating Officer by the Senior Superintendent of Police on basis of complaint made by the complainant but none of the Investigating Officer has found any evidence against Sanjay Bansal and Ajay Bansal.
32. It is also submitted that it is totally wrong to say that the Investigating Officer has wrongly made the accused to Dhananjay Vats and Jawahar Lal Vats. In fact, the matter was investigated and after collecting the material evidence charge sheet was submitted in Court and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the said charge sheet against the accused persons.
33. It is submitted that impugned order dated 06.09.2011 is fully justified and requires no interference.
Submission on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
34. Learned counsels for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 put forward his arguments as under:
35. The conspectus of the matter is that it relates to false implication of Sanjay Bansal and Ajay Bansal (both sons of R.K. Gupta, Chairman of IAMR College affiliated to CCS University, Meerut) by the Revisionists in this matter (namely, Jawahar Lal Vats, Lecturer in NAS College, Meerut affiliated to CCS University, Meerut and his son Dhananjay Vats, who was terminated by the opposite parties from his service as Lecturer from their IAMR College in 2005, as his appointment required approval by Vice Chancellor).
36. Unfortunately, the revisionist no. 2 was attacked by some unknown persons and accordingly a blind FIR was lodged by the revisionist no. 1 on 30.03.2006 which was registered as Case Crime No. 147/2006 under Section 307 IPC at Police Station- Nauchandi, District-Meerut. According to the evidence collected in this matter, the revisionist no. 2 was admitted in hospital and not unconscious and he did not know about the assailants. The statement of the revisionist no. 1 was recorded on the same day supporting his blind FIR. On 10.04.2006, i.e. on the twelfth day of the incident, the revisionist no. 2 named the opposite parties as assailants. On 14.04.2006, the revisionist no. 1 also made a supplementary statement to support the false charge and thus conspired with revisionist no. 2.
37. The Investigation Officer in Case Crime No. 147/2006 under Section 307 IPC submitted final report finding the name of opposite parties false and being named falsely with the intent to spoil the reputation of the Institution and for illegal gains. The cognizance was taken on the protest petition filed by the revisionists. The applicants approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 4983/2009 and 6068/2009 and they were duly protected by the interim order dated 26.03.2009. In this situation, the Public Prosecutor made an application for withdrawal from this false prosecution, which was allowed by the competent court and the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
38. The State also instituted separate proceedings against the revisionists which ultimately culminated into a charge sheet dated 06.01.2009 under Sections 195, 211, 120B and 389 of IPC on which cognizance was taken by the competent court, before the cognizance taken in Case Crime no. 147/2006, for false implication of Sanjay Bansal and Ajay Bansal (which is subject matter of Criminal Misc. Application no. 8882 of 2009 connected to the instant revision).
39. The Court took cognizance in Case Crime No. 147/2006 under Section 307 IPC, only on the basis that normally the injured only could tell about the real assailants (kindly see at page 118, ninth line from the top of the instant criminal revision), which is contrary to evidence collected in separate proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 467/2008 under Sections 195, 211, 389, 120-B IPC, thereby ignoring the order/direction of the Court dated 05.02.2009 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 28576-79/2009 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 648/2009. In this matter the State had definite evidence before them that opposite parties in this case were falsely implicated and accordingly they filed a charge sheet in separate proceedings by virtue of Case Crime No. 467/2008 under Sections 195, 211, 120B and 389 of IPC on which cognizance was taken by the competent court against the revisionists.
40. The investigating agency in the present case had definite evidence before them that the injured revisionist no. 2 had brought false charge against opposite parties inter alia, a VCD (Talks between the revisionist no. 2 and one Kuldeep Panwar, reported of Hindustan News Paper, with whom the revisionist no. 2 was trying to flare up the issue in the media, admitting therein, that due to ‘Kanooni Daon Pench’, he had named the opposite parties as assailants and in fact they were not the real assailants etc. The aforesaid VCD was sent for Forensic Examination and it was found to be genuine one and in this situation, the public prosecutor in-charge of the case, exercised his executive function to withdraw the prosecution of the Opposite Parties and submitted appropriate application dated 07.05.2010 under Section 321 Cr.P.C and sought the consent of the Court after receiving the requisite permission of the State Government dated 28.01.2010 to file the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C, which was duly allowed by the Magistrate by a detailed judgment which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
41. Learned counsels for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 also highlighted the scope of instant revision by way of submitting that the scope of the instant revision is very narrow. In revision of an order under Section 321 Cr.P.C, the duty of this Court is to see that the consideration by the competent court of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C was not misdirected and the grounds of withdrawal were legally valid.
42. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsels for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, 1987(1)SCC 288 wherein, it has been held that Section 321 Cr.P.C gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make the application or the considerations on which the Court is to grant its consent. The initiative is of the Public Prosecutor and what the court is to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially.
In para 79 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench held that, if on reading of the order giving consent, a higher court is satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the materials available, the order giving consent has to be upheld.
43. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also laid down that Section 397 gives the High Court jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of the inferior court and while doing so, it cannot substitute its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence and converts into an Appellate Court. The order according consent under Sections 321 Cr.P.C, is discretionary in nature, while exercising supervisory jurisidiction by the competent court.
44. Learned counsel next submitted that in the instant matter, the State Government after seeking reports etc. and proper application of mind granted the public prosecutor, incharge of the case, to file appropriate application in the court.
45. Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 18 of 1991 (w.e.f. 16.02.1991), mandates the written permission of State Government to withdraw from the prosecution by the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor being not an absolute independent officer, as he is appointed by the Government for conducting in Court any prosecution and therefore, a written permission is a sine qua non to an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the requisite permission was duly given by the State Government dated 28.01.2010 vide No. 724/WC/7-Justice-5-2009-202WC-2009.
46. The public prosecutor in the instant matter after proper application of mind and perusal of case diaries and all other materials pertaining to the matter, in view of complete facts, evidence and circumstances of the matter, sought informed consent from the competent court to withdraw the prosecution of the opposite parties. As the prosecution qua the opposite parties were not well founded and also indicated the definite clinching evidence collected by the investigating agency pertaining of Case Crime No. 467/2008 under Sections 211/195/389/120-B IPC against the revisionists, on which cognizance had already been taken, in the application itself.
47. It is submitted that, if this Court compares the application dated 07.05.2010 under Sections 321 Cr.P.C and the Government permission, it clearly reflects the independent application of mind by the public prosecutor and he had not acted blindly or on any extraneous consideration.
48. It is submitted that the scope of judicial function implicit in the exercise of judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the executive function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised and not to determine the matter judicially.
49. It is settled law that the essential consideration which is implicit in the power of public prosecutor withdrawing from the prosecution is that it should be in the interest of administration of justice, which depends entirely on the facts and circumstances (referring to case of M.N. Sankarayarayanan Nair Vs. P.B. Balakrishnan 1972 (1) SCC 318) Reliance is also placed over the case of State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra 1976 (4) SCC 250.
50. In the instant matter, revisionist no. 1 had initially raised the issue of jurisdiction of competent court, which was decided by the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2010 and that order had attained finality. Secondly, the revisionist also made false allegations of forgery etc. regarding the written permission dated 28.01.2010, accorded by the State Government in the instant matter. The learned court got all the proceedings verified and then only could proceeded further in this matter. It is humbly submitted that the revisionist is habitual of making false complaints and has not even spared the judicial officers in this regard. In the instant matter, learned Magistrate due to the conduct of revisionists very cautiously exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and wanted himself to be clarified and satisfied about the independent opinion of the public prosecutor.
51. In the instant matter, the public prosecutor in support of his application submitted that it is the duty of the State that the real culprits to be prosecuted and it would be against the interest of advancement of criminal justice system to prosecute any innocent person . The learned Magistrate duly applied its mind on the entire record, case diaries, the permission of the State Government and ultimately came to the conclusion that the reasoning and the grounds of the application made by the public prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C are correct and valid and returned its categorical finding that the application made by public prosecutor is bonafide and would serve public cause and advancement of justice.
52. Thus, the learned competent court had complied with its duty to see that the grounds of withdrawal were legally valid and application made by the public prosecutor was bona fide and not collusive. In this matter, the revisionist did not put forward his case that application made by the public prosecutor was either mala fide or not in good faith, the only submission is on non-application of mind, which is contrary to record. Moreover, the opinion of the APO has never been challenged even in the instant criminal revision. The opinion of the APO cannot be reviewed in the instant revision. There is no allegation of bias against the judge who consented for withdrawal. The public prosecutor perused the record and the Magistrate also perused the complete record, this fact is mentioned in the impugned judgment/order, and the same is also not challenged. The reliance is placed on para 70, 71 and 72 of the Sheonandan Paswan (supra). It is also settled that decision of public prosecutor cannot be lightly intefered unless the court comes to conclusion that it is not bona fide.
53. The false prosecution is a valid reason for withdrawal. Prosecuting agency had brough sufficient material to show that the prosecution in Case Crime No. 147/2006 is based on false evidence of revisionists and a charge-sheet was preferred separately in Case Crime No. 467/2008 under Sections 195, 211, 389, 120-B IPC on which cognizance had been already taken by the competent court. The supervisory function of court had been properly exercised.
54. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2011 is perfectly in accordance with law and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed.
Issue, Discussion and Conclusion
55. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, certain scope of revision available before this Court has been discussed in catena of judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Benches of other High Courts and this Court also. The gist of ratio laid down in several judgments are as under which are material to be discussed while adjudicating the controversy as raised by the revisionist through the instant revision.
56. The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the fact of with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restricts is that it should not be exercised against an interim or interlocutory order. Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (paras 12 & 13).
57. The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. There are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that is should not be exercised against an interm or interlocutory order. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C can be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. The revisional jurisdiction of the court u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C is very limited one.
58. Relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 18), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case noted below, has ruled thus: “Normally, revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.”
(I) Chandra Babu Vs. State, (2015) 8 SCC 774.
(ii) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 (para 18)
(iii) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 18).
59. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though Section 397 Cr.P.C does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction u/s 397 Cr.P.C is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 397 Cr.P.C but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction can be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where is the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (paras 12, 13 & 20).
60. Where the Himachal Pradesh High Court had allowed the Criminal Revision by entering into merits (assuming original powers of the trial court) by reappreciating entire evidence and forming opinion that there was no prima facie case against the accused for framing charge, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the order of the High Court was improper in as much as the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot appraise the evidence. It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. Pertinenetly, even the trial court cannot conduct roving and fishing inquiry into evidence. It has only to consider whether evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima facie case against the accused or not. Ashish Chadha Vs. Smt. Asha Kumari & another, AIR 2012 SC 431.
61. Where in a revision filed before Sessions Judge against rejection of application by Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Sessions Judge (by exercising original powers of the Magistrate) himself had directed the police for registration of FIR, it has been held that the Sessions Judge could not have directed the police to register FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
1. Hari Prakash Kasana Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (5) ALJ 750 (AII)
2. Nawal Kishor Gupta vs. State of U.P., 2010 (5) ALJ 338 (AII)
62. Sections 397 to 403 Cr.P.C do not confer a right on a litigant to file revision but the revisional power is only discretionary with the court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence.
(I) Malti Vs. State of U.P., 2000 CrLJ 4170 (AII)
(ii) Iqram Vs. State of U.P. 1988(2) crimes 414 (AII).
63. While the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court’s jurisdiction as appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it’s jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C confer only limited power on revisional court to extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.
1. Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 12 & 18).
2. Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad, AIR 2008 SC 1165
3. State farm Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502
4. State of Maharashtra vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC)
5. Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107
6. Smt. Sheela Devi vs. Munnalal, 2000 (41) ACC 158 (Allahabad)
7. Ganga Prasad vs. State of U.P., 2000 (40) ACC 761 (Allahabad)
8. Sachidanand Singh vs. State of U.P., 1999(39) ACC 681 (AII)
9. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand, 1998 (30) ACC 275 (SC)
10. Jamuna vs. State of U.P., 1997 (2) AWC 959 (Allahabad)
11. Akhlak Ahmad vs. Vahid Ali Ansari, 1987 (24) ACC 544 (AII)
12. Dulichand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960
64. Where in a case of maintenance filed by wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C, the High Court had altered the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate in its revisional powers u/s 401 Cr.P.C even when the said findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate were neither perverse nor erroneous but based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, setting aside the order of the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court in its revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion.
(I) State of T.N. vs. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294 (paras 65 & 66)
(ii) Shamima Farooqi Vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705.
65. Normally, revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 Cr.P.C should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
(I) Chandra Babu Vs. State, (2015) 8 SCC 774
(ii) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 18).
(iii) Smt. Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P., 2014 (84) ACC 81 (AII)
66. Revisional court can interfere with the findings of fact of the lower court only when the same is perverse and not merely when another view is also possible. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & others, (2015) 3 SCC 123.
67. When the findings recorded by the lower court are based on no evidence, material evidence has been ignored or judicial discretion ha sbeen exercised arbitrarily or perversely, the revisional court can interfere in exercise of it’s powers u/s 397 Cr.P.C. Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 12).
68. From the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed at various sub-heads noted above, the scope for interference by the revisional court with the findings of fact recorded by the lower Court may be summarized as under:
(I) findings of fact recorded by lower court on an evidence not available on record.
(ii) material evidence, which could have reflected on the the merits and the decision of the case, has been ignored by the lower court
(iii) finding of fact recorded on an evidence not admissible
(iv) material evidence discarded by treating it as inadmissible
(v) finding of fact being perverse in terms of law
(vi) but while disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the lower court, the revisional court would not proceed to appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence itself. The revisional court would only make its observations on the illegality committed by the lower court in appreciating the mistakes of law committed by the lower court, would set aside the findings and the order of the lower court by directing it to re-appreciate the evidence, record fresh findings of fact as per law by keeping in view the observations made by the revisional court and pass fresh orders.
69. In the case noted below, the Magistrate had convicted the revisionist for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also awarded a compensation of Rs. Three lakhs payable to the respondent/complainant. While deciding the criminal revision u/s 401 Cr.P.C, the High Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh decision. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court by observing that when sufficient material was there before the High Court, it ought to by observing that when sufficient material was there before the High Court, it ought to have finally decided the matter itself and remanding it to the Magistrate for fresh have finally decided the matter itself and remanding it to the Magistrate for fresh decision was not proper for the High Court. Susanta Dey vs. Babli Majumdar, AIR 2019 SC 1661.
70. The facts alongwith the finding recorded by learned ACJM, Court No.4, Meerut while passing order dated 06.09.2011, have to be judicially scrutinized in the parameters of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court as discussed above regarding competency and jurisdiction, related case crime number arising out of inter-se criminal dispute pending between the parties have been given credence by this Court and the same has been elaborately discussed while passing the order which impugned the present criminal revision. The sole question which is materially to be adjudicated that whether the power vest with learned court of Magistrate under Section 321 Cr.P.C., has been rightly passed and is there any legal infirmity available which warrants interference of this Court?
71. Applying the litmus over the order dated 06.09.2011 which impugned the present criminal revision by the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the cases of Amit Kapoor (supra), Chandra Babu (supra) and Vinay Tyagi (supra), the jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is a very limited one, the illegality, propriety or correctness of the order passed by learned court of ACJM, Court No.4, Meerut, is they very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law and the decision is completely erroneous or where is the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
72. While examining the order dated 06.09.2011, detailed discussion has been made with regard to facts which cannot be interfered by this Court, moreover, the entire fact has not been disputed at all by the revisionist. In sofar as illegality of the order is concerned, no specific illegality found in shape of procedure or finding recorded by learned court concerned.
73. Application preferred at the behest of State under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by the Prosecution Officer on dated 07.05.2010, is also on the footings of fact which has been broadly discussed by learned court concerned and as such, in the absence of any perversity or illegality involved in the order dated 06.09.2011, no interference required by this Court, therefore, order dated 06.09.2011 is hereby upheld.
74. In sofar as terminology of illegality and perversity is concerned, the same has been settled in the judgment in case of Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India (NHA) IRONLINE 2019 SC 329 rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that if material facts assailed by the concerned party in re, has not been appreciated and discussed but later on determined thereupon, the order may be termed as perverse, in the same manner, if the order which impugned the consideration of any court of law, is not in consonance with the provisions and procedures and contrary to the same, shall be termed as illegal, by bare perusal of the orders impugned there is hardly any illegality or perversity reflected either through the pleadings or from the facts of the matter.
75. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2024
Shaswat/Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)