Allahabad High Court
Gautam Kumar Pandey Alias Chandrakant vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 21 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49053
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6766 of 2025
Applicant :- Gautam Kumar Pandey Alias Chandrakant
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar,Shiv Kumar Soni
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Sri Sudhakar Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/informant and the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023, has been filed with the prayer to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 25-07-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2025(Gautam Kumar Pandey alias Chandrakant Versus State of U.P. and Another), as well as the impugned order dated 28-05-2025 passed by the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 23339 of 2023(State Versus Manorama Pandey and Others), arising out of the impugned chargesheet No. 609 of 2023, dated 05-08-2023 filed by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 0575 of 2023, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of I.P.C, pertaining to Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Barabanki and to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 23339 of 2023.
4. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first information report was lodged by the informant on 16-05-2023, under sections 420, 467, 468,471 of I.P.C. at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, district-Barabanki, whereafter, the chargesheet was filed while adding sections 120-B & 406 of I.P.C. He submits that the applicant is neither vendor nor vendee or the marginal witness of the sale deed in question and the crux of the dispute is that the sale deed, which was executed by the sister of the applicant, while committing the alleged cheat and fraud and the allegation of breach of trust is also levelled. He added that after issuance of summons, the applicant approached the learned trial court while moving an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C., whereafter the trial court passed the order impugned dated 28-05-2025, without considering the fact that there is no evidence apparent after the matter is investigated against the applicant.
5. He has drawn attention of this court towards the orders impugned stating that there is not a single whisper regarding any prima-facie, evidence on the basis of which, the trial against the applicant would remain continue. He has also argued that being aggrieved, the applicant moved a revision, whereafter the revisional court passed the order on 25-07-2025 and on the basis of a superfluous and ambiguous fact, the revision has been rejected. He submits that on place of considering the fact that the role of the applicant is mostly of charge under section 120-B of I.P.C.,it has been observed that the applicant is involved in committing the forgery of a sale deed, which is perverse.
6. He argued that the sale deed itself is enough to disclose that the sale consideration has been received by the sister of the applicant and the terms and conditions of the sale deed also find mention that in case of any dispute, the parties shall approach the civil court by instituting a civil suit. He added that the dispute is in between the vendor and the vendee and the applicant has no concern with the same and only being the brother of the vendor, he has been roped in the instant matter.
7. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 and has referred paragraph nos. 10 & 11 of the said Judgment, which are quoted hereinunder :-
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the a matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the b documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."
8. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the stage of discharge is a very valuable stage prescribed for the accused and therefore, deciding an application for discharge moved by an accused, can not be decided in a cursory manner.
9. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order impugned dated 28-05-2025 passed by the learned trial court as well as the order dated 25-07-2025 passed by the learned revisional court, may be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2/informant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that one of the marginal witness has stated that certain part of sale consideration has been received in cash by the applicant and the applicant is a key player and he was priest in a police station, wherein the informant/complainant was posted and taking the benefit of his relations, he has played mischief with the informant and has committed cheat and fraud, in collusion with his sister. He added that the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court are well considered and therefore, no interference is warranted.
11. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the instant matter arose after sale deed was executed in favour of the wife of the informant/opposite party no. 2, by the sister of the applicant. The first information report was lodged and subsequently, section 120-B of I.P.C. was added after investigating the matter and the chargesheet filed and the applicant's role was found to the extent of criminal conspiracy.
13. When I examine the orders impugned, passed by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court, it is apparent that both the courts have noted the arguments of counsel for the respected parties, but, the findings do not speak regarding any discussion on the role or the evidence of the applicant-accused.
14. It is well settled law that after lodging of the first information report, stage of discharge, is the first opportunity to the accused, to say in his defence and therefore, this is a very important right of accused, where the trial court has to be cautious enough to decide the application for discharge.
15. This court finds that the learned trial court as well the revisional court have failed to decide the discharge application in a well considered manner, thus, those are unsustainable.
16. Resultantly, the order dated 28-05-2025 passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 23339 of 2023 and the order dated 25-07-2025 passed by the learned revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2025, are hereby set aside.
17.The matter is remitted back to the learned trial court concerned to decide the discharge application of the applicant, afresh, and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned(while adhering the prevalent laws), within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
18. The applicant shall cooperate with the proceedings of the trial.
19. The instant application is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
AKS
