Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
2025:AHC-LKO:54975
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1667 of 2022
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra, Devansh Vikram Singh, Durgesh Kumar Shukla, Huzoor Alam Alvi, Zeeshan Alvi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Gaurav Verma, Vikas Vikram Singh
with
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6294 of 2025
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Akshat Sinha, Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Gaurav Verma, Vikas Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Durgesh Kumar Shukla, Ishan Baghel, Randhir Singh
Reserved on 02.09.2025
Delivered on 11.09.2025
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. These two writ petitions, under Section 482, Nos. 1607 of 2022 and 6294 of 2025, are being decided by a common judgment. The petition under Section 482, No. 1607 of 2022, was filed by Rajeev Singh in Case Crime No. 219/2021, registered under Sections 406/419/420/506/34/170/467/468/471/411 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow, seeking to quash the orders dated 05.10.2021 and 29.10.2022, passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI, AP), Lucknow, along with a prayer for release of gold ornaments in his favour. The second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., No. 6294 of 2025, titled Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and another, was filed seeking, inter alia, quashing of the order dated 19.07.2025 and the correction order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (ATS), Lucknow, in State Vs. Brijendra Pal Singh, relating to Case Crime No. 219/2021, under the same penal sections, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
2. Heard Sri I.B. learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ishan Baghel, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, and Sri Randheer Singh, counsel for the applicant/complainant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent, and Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, counsel for the private respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Case Crime No. 219/2021, under Sections 406/419/420/506/34 IPC, was registered at the instance of complainant Nitish Rastogi against B.P. Singh, Rajeev Singh, and Smt. Bimla Singh, alleging that they fraudulently misappropriated gold jewellery worth Rs. 3 crore 20 lakhs, and that Rajeev Singh, impersonating an IPS Officer, misused his position. Pursuant to the FIR, the police and SIT apprehended the accused, recovering 5 kg 743 grams and 90 mg of gold jewellery from their possession. A Fard Baramadgi was prepared. A charge sheet was filed on 22.01.2022 against Rajeev Singh under Sections 406/419/420/506/470/467/468/471/411 IPC, and against B.P. Singh and Smt. Bimla under Sections 406/420/506 IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken on 08.02.2022. The complainant, Nitish Rastogi, then filed an application for release of the jewellery, claiming it belonged to him, as it had been fraudulently taken from his shop by the accused and seized upon his FIR.
4. The learned Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CBI, AP), Lucknow, allowed the complainants release application by order dated 05.10.2021, directing release of the seized jewellery. The operative portion of the order is quoted below:
आदेश
उपरोक्त प्रकरण में जब्त सोना/आभूषण प्रार्थी/आवेदक की सुपुर्दगी में दिए जाने संबंधी प्रार्थना पत्र निम्न शर्तों के साथ स्वीकार किया जाता है।
प्रार्थी मुबलिग तीन करोड़ चालीस लाख रूपए (3,40,00,000/-) का व्यक्तिगत बंधपत्र एवं समान धनराशि का एक विश्वसनीय प्रतिभू दाखिल करे तथा इस आशय का अंडरटेकिंग भी दे कि दौरान वाद उक्त सोना/आभूषण को न तो किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के पक्ष मैं व किसी भी प्रकार से अन्तरित करेगा और न ही उसके भौतिक स्वरूप, रूप रंग, आकार-प्रकार, में परिवर्तन करेगा, तथा न्यायालय या पुलिस/विवेचक द्वारा आहूत किए जाने पर अपने खर्चे पर प्रश्नगत सोना/आभूषण को आदेशित स्थान तथा समय पर प्रस्तुत करेगा तथा उक्त सोना / आभूषाण किसी अवैध कार्य में उपयोग नहीं करेगा।
थानाध्यक्ष को आदेशित किया जाता है कि प्रश्नगत सोना / आभूषण की नियंआ, फोटोग्राफी एवं पंचनामा कराकर एवं उक्त फोटाग्राफ पंचनामें पर प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर बनवा तथा अन्दर सप्ताह न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत करें।
थानाध्यक्ष को आदेशित किया जाता है कि यदि उक्त सोना/आभूषण किसी अन्य में वांछित न हो. और नियमानुसार कोई कर या शुल्क देय न हो तो मामले/अपराध सोना/आभूषण से संबंधित समस्त प्रपत्रों (रसीद आदि) का सत्यापन सुनिश्चित कर दौरान " मुकदमा मूल स्वामी की व्यक्तिगत पहचान एवं स्थायी पता सुनिश्चित कर नियमानुसार प्रश्नगत सोना / आभूषण प्रार्थी की अन्तरिम अभिरक्षा में दिया जाये।
उक्त सोना/आभूषण से संबंधित समस्त प्रपत्रों की तीन-तीन फोटोस्टेट प्रति पत्रावली मे रखा जाये।
इस आदेश की एक प्रति थानाध्यक्ष महानगर, को सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु अविलम्ब प्रेषित किया जाये।
उपरोक्त शर्तों की प्रतिपूर्ति के पश्चात् थानाध्यक्ष, महानगर, जनपद लखनऊ को आदेशित किया जाता है कि, वह उक्त सोना / आभूषण यदि किसी अन्य बाद में वॉछित न हो तो, आवेदक नीतेश रस्तोगी / अधिकृत व्यक्ति की पहचान सुनिश्चित कर उसकी सुपुर्दगी में दे दें।"
5. From the record, it appears that Rajeev Singh (accused) filed a recall application against the release order dated 05.10.2021, which was rejected by the court below on account of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 29.01.2022.
6. Challenging both the release order dated 05.10.2021 and the rejection of his recall application dated 29.01.2022, Rajeev Singh filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein, by interim order dated 12.04.2022, the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 was stayed. Subsequently, he also filed an application for clarification/modification of the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by this Court.
7. It appears that Rajeev Singh thereafter filed three applications for compliance of this Courts order dated 12.04.2024, staying the release order dated 15.10.2021. All three applications were decided by order dated 19.07.2025. The first application, dated 02.07.2022, was partly allowed, while the second and third, dated 29.04.2022 and 07.10.2024, were disposed of. By order dated 19.07.2025, the complainant was directed to present the jewellery, earlier released under order dated 05.10.2021, before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, Mahanagar, within three days. The officer was directed to verify the jewellery with the earlier inventory, photographs, and panchnama, prepare fresh records with the applicants signatures, and ensure that the items were taken into custody and deposited safely in the malkhana. The operative portion of the order is quoted below:
"प्रार्थी का प्रथम प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित 12.04.2002 3आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है एवं 02/07/2022 प्रार्थी के द्वितीय प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित 20.04.2022 व तृतीय प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित 07.10.2024 निस्तारित किये जाते है। वादी मुकदमा को आदेशित किया जाता है कि आदेश दिनांकित 05.10.2021 के प्रभाव में जो सोना/आभूषण उसको प्राप्त कराया गया था, को इस आदेश की तिथि के तीन दिवस के अंदर विवेचक / थानाध्यक्ष महानगर के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें। विवेचक / थानाध्यक्ष महानगर को आदेशित किया जाता है कि प्रश्नगत सोना / आभूषण को पूर्व में की गयी फोटोग्राफी, पंचनामा जिस पर प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर बने हुये है व पूर्व में तैयार की गयी विवरणी से मिलान कर पुनः उनकी फोटोग्राफी व पंचनामा तैयार कर उक्त विवरणी, फोटोग्राफी व पंचनामा पर प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर बनवाने के पश्चात व पुनः विवरणी बनवाकर अपने कब्जे में लेकर माल खाने में रखवाना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही विवेचक / थानाध्यक्ष महानगर को यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि उपरोक्त सोना / आभूषण को अपने कब्जे में लेने से पूर्व, पूर्व में तैयार की गयी विवरणी, फोटोग्राफी व पंचनामा से उसका सत्यापन करने के पश्चात अपने कब्जे में लेकर मालखाने में रखावाना सुनिश्चित करें। पत्रावली दिनांक 13.08.2025 को वास्ते आरोप विरचन हेतु प्रस्तुत हो।"
8. Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of Rajeev Singh (accused), argued that the interim order dated 12.04.2022 was correctly passed and the seized property should ordinarily be released to the person from whom it was seized.
9. He further submitted that Rajeev Singh is a bona fide purchaser of the gold ornaments and, therefore, the property should not have been released in favour of the complainant. He relied on the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.
10. It was also contended that the gold ornaments were released in favour of the informant by an ex-parte order, without giving the accused Rajeev Singh an opportunity of hearing.
11. On the other hand, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, counsel for the complainant, opposed the submissions, contending that while filing Petition No. 1667 of 2022 under Section 482, Rajeev Singh failed to disclose that the order dated 05.10.2021 had already been complied with and executed on 09.10.2021. This fact was admitted by Rajeev Singh in paragraph 10 of his clarification application regarding the order dated 12.04.2022. He further argued that the interim order dated 12.04.2022 was passed six months after execution of the order dated 05.10.2021, and that Rajeev Singhs petition suffered from material concealment. Had the Court been informed of the execution of the earlier order, no interim order would have been granted.
12. It was further pointed out that the application dated 29.09.2022, for clarification/modification of the order dated 12.04.2022, was served on the counsel for the informant/petitioner only on 20.04.2023, and that too after a specific direction of this Court dated 19.04.2023.
12A. An application for recall of the order dated 05.10.2021 was filed by the accused dated 01.12.2021 which was duly supported by his affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the said application, it has been admitted that although jewellery was purchased by the accused from the complainant, however, the payment could not be made.
13. This Court has observed that the counsel presently appearing for the accused-applicant in Petition No. 1667 of 2022 were engaged subsequently. They have not argued this matter earlier on 12.04.2022, when the interim order was passed, as at that time, Shri A.P. Mishra, Advocate, appeared for Rajeev Singh.
14. It also appears that the counsel for Rajeev Singh are unable to respond to the allegation of suppression of facts at the time when the interim order dated 12.04.2022 was passed. Both sides, however, have expressed concern regarding preservation of the seized jewellery, which is currently in possession of complainant Nitesh Rastogi.
15. Perused the record.
16. On perusal of the order dated 12.04.2022, it prima facie appears that the impugned order dated 05.10.2021, which had already been executed prior to the interim order, was not brought to the Courts notice. However, since the counsel who argued for Rajeev Singh at that stage is no longer appearing and has been substituted, the Court refrains from considering the allegations of suppression of facts raised by the complainants counsel.
17. The Honble Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), while considering the scope of expeditious and judicious use of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C., laid down the principles governing disposal of mudammal articles during trial, particularly valuable ones such as gold and silver. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: The relevant part of the order is extracted below:-
9. The Court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property.
10.To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.
Valuable articles and currency notes
11.With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.
12.For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and
(3) after taking proper security.
13.For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition.
14.In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.
18. In the present case, both parties are asserting rival claims for release of the property in their favour. The Honble Supreme Court, in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, has held that in situations where the articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom they were seized, the Court may direct that they be kept in bank lockers.
19. Therefore, to ensure preservation of the case property during trial, and in the interest of justice, this Court considers it appropriate that the seized jewellery be deposited in bank lockers.
20. Accordingly, both petitions stand disposed of.
21. The complainant, Nitesh Rastogi, is directed to open a bank account with locker facility in a nationalized bank within a period of 15 days from today. An inventory and panchnama of the seized jewellery shall be prepared in the presence of the investigating officer/SHO Mahanagar, photographs of the articles shall be taken and the videography shall also be conducted. While preparing inventory, the investigating officer/SHO, Mahanagar shall tally it with the earlier inventory prepared when the articles were handed over in the possession of the complainant. The investigating officer after verifying the items with earlier records and obtaining signatures of the complainant and other witnesses upon the inventory and panchnama, shall have the jewellery deposited by the complainant in the bank locker in the presence of the complainant and the witnesses.
22. Once the jewellery is deposited, the concerned police officer as well as the complainant both shall inform the learned trial court about the deposit of seized articles in the bank locker.
23. Copies of the inventory and panchnama as well as photographs shall be retained in Malkhana as well as in the record of the trial court. Once the jewellery is deposited in the bank locker, the Manager of the Bank shall not allow operation of the locker without prior permission of the trial court.
24. The trial court shall direct the complainant to furnish an undertaking or any other conditions, in the interest of justice, to ensure the safe custody of the property.
25. Office is directed to transmit copy of this order to the learned trial court and to the concerned police officials of Case Crime No. 219/2021, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow.
26. The trial court shall make all endeavours to examine the prosecution witnesses within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and shall ensure that there is no delay in the trial.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
11, September, 2025
R.C.
