Allahabad High Court
Som Chandra Yadav Constable And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:159349
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40076 of 2024
Som Chandra Yadav Constable And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Prahlad Kumar Bhardwaj, Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Prahlad Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including proceedings of Criminal Case No.14212 of 2007 (State Vs. Somchandra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.527 of 2007, under Sections 223, 224 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Varanasi.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the records of the trial Court have gone missing and there is no possibility of reconstruction of the trial court records. He further submits that the reports have been called for regarding reconstruction of trial Court records but inspite of best efforts, the trial Court records of the instant case have not been reconstructed. He further submits that the matter relates to the year 2007 and 18 years have passed and the applicants are facing unnecessary harassment for no fault on their part. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicants relates to offences under Sections 223, 224 IPC, in which, maximum punishment is of two years or fine. It is further submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 were serving as constable on the alleged date of occurrence. The applicant no.1 has retired and applicant no.2 is still serving as constable and applicant no.3 is still working as home guard.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court passed in Brahmanand Shukla Vs. State of U.P., 2010(5) ADJ 158 (DB), in which, the appeal was allowed in absence of availability of the trial Court records.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has no objection to the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.
6. The trial Court records have gone missing in the year 2023 and several attempts have been made to reconstruct the trial Court records but till date, reconstruction is not possible. The latest report of the District Judge, Varanasi clearly reflects that reconstruction of the trial Court records of the case are not possible. The matter relates to the year 2007 and the offences are under Sections 223, 224 IPC, in which, maximum punishment of two years or fine.
7. In the similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court dealt with the matter in Brahmanand Shukla Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (5) ADJ 158 (D.B.). In the said matter, it was observed that - "In the present case, as we have mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment only a copy of the trial court's judgment is available and no other documents like FIR, post mortem report, copies of the documents which had been filed by the prosecution and were exhibited during trial, the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are available despite various attempts to reconstruct the record. The incident is of the year 1979 i.e. the incident took place about 30 years back. In these circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by ordering re-trial as the same cannot be conducted at all in absence of these documents. In the light of the above discussions and the circumstances mentioned above,we have no other alternative but to allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and to acquit him. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His sureties and personal bonds are discharged. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for its intimation."
8. Subsequently the issue was again raised before the Division Bench of this Court in Government Appeal No.2528 of 1987, State of U.P. Vs. Subedar and others, which was an acquittal appeal and the Division Bench in the aforesaid matter found which is extracted here in below - "The incident in the present case is of the year 1986 almost 29 years ago. The judgment of the trial court is of the year 1987. The appeal is pending for the last 29 years. In absence of the record the direction for retrial would be of no purpose inasmuch as, the FIR, inquest report, the injury report, the postmortem report, site plan and other recovery memos are not available and as such nothing can be proved by directing retrial. Further retrial after a lapse of such a long time would also not serve the ends of justice, inasmuch as, requiring the witnesses to depose about the incident which took place 29 years ago, their memory would be falling and they would not be in a position to give an accurate account of the incident.
For the above reasons, we are not inclined to issue any direction for retrial. In such circumstances, we relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Abhai Raj Singh and another [2004 (2) JIC 337 (SC)] and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Brahmanand Shukla Vs. State of U.P. [LAWS (ALL)-2010-4-14], proceed to decide the appeals accordingly.
The only option that remains with us is to dismiss the Government Appeal.
Accordingly, the Government Appeal is dismissed"
9. Though, in Brahmanand Shukla (supra), the appeal was before a Division Bench of this Court against conviction and the Divison Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence due to non availability of the trial Court records.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, reconstruction of the trial Court records is not possible and the matter relates to the year 2007 and the maximum punishment is 2 years or fine in the offences alleged. The proceeding of the aforesaid case is fit to be quashed in view of Brahmanand Shukla Vs. State of U.P., 2010(5) ADJ 158 (DB).
11. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Case Crime No.527 of 2007, under Sections 223, 224 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Varanasi, are hereby quashed against the applicants.
12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 10, 2025
RKM
