HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW Sanjay Kashyap @ Sanjay Kumar .....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jaibind Singh Rathour, Kartik Rawat, Yogendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 34 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Jaibind Singh Rathour, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 16252 of 2023 (State Vs. Jitendra Verma @ Jeetu Verma and others) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, charge sheet no. 303 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022 against the applicant arising out of case crime no. 182 of 2022, under Sections 147, 353, 341, 188 I.P.C. & 7 CLA Act, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi as well as Consequential order i.e. summoning order dated 02.06.2023 against the applicant, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged against 100 unnamed persons and there is no any specific allegation against the applicant in the instant matter. In Application under Section 482 No. 5131 of 2024 (Sheel Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another) vide order dated 26.09.2024, the proceedings arising out of the same FIR/case crime has been quashed. The applicant of the present case stands on the similar footing that of the order passed by this Court mentioned above, wherein the Court held as follows:

4. "

3. It is stated that the proceedings under Section 147, 188, 341, 353 I.P.C., pending before the trial Court based upon the FIR is unsustainable in the eyes of law particularly in view of provisions as envisaged under Section 195 IPC.

4. It is further submitted that Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17560 of 2023 (Sumit And Another vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) held that proceedings under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the Court and not on the basis of Police report. Reference can be made to Para 8 to 23 of the judgment, which are extracted hereinunder:-

"8. Before dealing with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., it will be appropriate to discuss the legal provision, involved in the present case. Section 195 Cr.P.C. which prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C., is being quoted below:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the com