Satanjay Varma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12216 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satanjay Varma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home ... on 7 November, 2025

Author: Rajeev Singh

Bench: Rajeev Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 6490 of 2023
 

 
Satanjay Varma
 

 

 
..Applicant(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and another
 

 

 
..Opposite Party(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Applicant(s)
 
:
 
Amit Chaudhary, 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
 
:
 
G.A., 
 

 

 
Reserved on: 17.10.2025
 
Pronounced on: 07.11.2025
 

 
Court No. - 14 
 

 
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

"To set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 17473 of 2018 (State Vs. Satanjay Verma and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 679 of 2016 u/s 406, 465 I.P.C., Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as one Atul Sharma requested for help of sum of Rs. 1.5 crores for improving his business and assured that he would pay 14% interest on the given amount, the applicant provided sum of Rs. 1.18 crores to him with the help of one Hemant Dwivedi. Atul Sharma provided four postdated security cheques amounting Rs. 25 lacs each and one cheque amounting Rs. 18 lacs mentioning the dates 13.09.2015, 13.10.2015 and 13.01.2016 respectively. The said cheques were placed before the Bank, but the same were dishonoured. Thereafter, Atul Sharma requested for some more time to return the amount, yet the amount was not returned to the applicant. Then, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged. The investigation was conducted and the Investigating Officer prepared charge-sheet no. 679 on 09.06.2016 against Atul Sharma for the offense of Section 406 I.P.C. and the charge-sheet was also prepared against the applicant, who is informant of the case in question, for the offense of Section 465 I.P.C.. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet mentioning the names of ten witnesses.

4. The names of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet are as under:-

i. Satanjay Verma (applicant),

ii. Hemant Dwivedi,

iii. Anil Pandey,

iv. Pramod Kumar, Deputy Director (investigation), Income Tax Department, Lucknow,

v. Ved Prakash, Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow,

vi. Constable- Ranvijay (F.I.R./G.D. writer),

vii. Sub Inspector- Anil Kumar, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (first Investigating Officer),

viii. Sub Inspector- Aadesh Chandra,Police Station- Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (second Investigating Officer),

ix. V.P. Srivastava, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Lucknow (Investigating Officer),

x. D.P.N. Pandey, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Lucknow (Investigating Officer).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the case diary reveals that the applicant has been chargesheeted for the offense under Section 465 I.P.C. on the basis of statement of Pramod Kumar, Deputy Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, but in the entire case diary, the statement of the Pramod Kumar is not found.

It has next been submitted that in case any evidence would be found against the applicant, it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to obtain permission from the concerned Magistrate. In the present case, no mandatory permission was obtained by the Investigating Officer from competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigation against the applicant for the offence u/s 465 I.P.C. and once the permission is not obtained, the entire exercise done by the Investigating Officer is non est in the eyes of law.

It has also been submitted that counter affidavit has been filed by Smt. Samiksha Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Lucknow admitting therein that the statement of Pramod Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded and as certain documents were provided by him, his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses.

It has vehemently been submitted that sole basis of submitting the charge-sheet against the applicant is one 'byana prapti receipt', which was provided by the applicant to the Investigating Officer and the same is concerned with Anil Pandey, but the said prapti receipt was never sent for signature verification.

Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofKeshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 11 SCC 557, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that indulgence of this Court is required for setting aside the charge-sheet prepared by the Investigating Officer in relation to the applicant for the offense under Section 465 I.P.C.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant. He has submitted that all the arguments raised by the applicant's counsel can be raised before learned trial Court. He has not disputed the fact that the F.I.R. in question was lodged by the applicant against one Atul Sharma and in the investigation, it was found that one document relied by the applicant was not genuine and the said document was never sent for signature verification. He has also not disputed the fact that the offense under Section 465 I.P.C. is non cognizable and it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to take permission from the Court concerned under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. with regard to conduct investigation against the applicant, and in case the permission is not obtained, investigation report in relation to the application is non est. He did not contradict the legal pronouncement in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (supra).

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the applicant against Atul Sharma and the investigation was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the applicant/informant of the present case, who has placed a bogus receipt issued by Anil Pandey, is also accused for the offense u/s 465 I.P.C. for the charge of forgery. The said document was never sent for signature verification. The offense committed u/s 465 I.P.C. is non cognizable and it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to obtain permission u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. for conducting investigation against the applicant, but no permission was obtained. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer without obtaining mandatory permission is bad in the eyes of law and this controversy has already been considered and decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (supra). Para 3 of the judgment Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (supra) is as under:-

"3. We need not go into the question whether in the facts of the instant case the above view of the High Court is proper or not for the impugned proceeding has got to be quashed as neither the police was entitled to investigate into the offence in question nor the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance upon the report submitted on completion of such investigation. On the own showing of the police, the offence under Section 31 of the Act is non-cognizable and therefore the police could not have registered a case for such an offence under Section 154 CrPC. Of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a non-cognizable offence pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC but, admittedly, no such order was passed in the instant case. That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the offence in question nor submit a report on which the question of taking cognizance could have arisen. While on this point, it may be mentioned that in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, which defines complaint, the police is entitled to submit, after investigation, a report relating to a non-cognizable offence in which case such a report is to be treated as a complaint of the police officer concerned, but that explanation will not be available to the prosecution here as that relates to a case where the police initiates investigation into a cognizable offence unlike the present one but ultimately finds that only a non-cognizable offence has been made out."

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer for the offense u/s 465 I.P.C., which is non cognizable, without obtaining mandatory permission u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate. Therefore, the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant for the offense under Section 465 I.P.C. and the summoning order dated 21.08.2019 including the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 17473 of 2018 (supra) are set aside.

9. With the above observations, the application is allowed.

10. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

November 7, 2025

Arpan