Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16052 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1579 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Pandey @ Rajesh Ram Lal Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Rajesh Kumar,Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. Present case under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred with following main relief:- "To quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 16204/2022 State Vs. Rajesh Ram Lal another arising out of FIR No. 227/2020 for the offences U/s 406/420/386/120-B IPC lodged at PS Gudamba, District Lucknow which is pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate-VII, Court No. 31 Lucknow." Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that an F.I.R. dated 10.09.2020 was lodged by one Shri Saurabh Mishra (now deceased) under Sections 420, 406 and 386 I.P.C. falsely implicating the applicants. 3. It is further submitted that the statement of complainant- Saurabh Mishra was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was in corroboration with the contents of the F.I.R. and thereafter, the investigating officer was transferred and new investigating officer again recorded the statement of complainant on 16.7.2021 in which the complainant completely changed his version from the contents of the F.I.R. The charge- sheet was filed in the Case No. 16204 of 2022. In the charge- sheet, there are only 5 prosecution witness. One of them was the complainant and four others were the police officials. Before the complainant could have come in the witness box, he expired on 04.03.2024 and the F.I.R. could not be proved to be taken as admissible piece of evidence. 4. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is the initial step in a criminal case recorded by the Police and contains basic information of crime committed, place of occurrence, time of occurrence/commission of an offence and as to who was the victim etc. 5. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. could be seen as an admissible piece of evidence, if it falls within the domain of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1872) i.e. in case Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case. In support thereof, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment dated 30.01.2025 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Vs. Vishwanath and others (Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017), wherein it has been held that except the conditions provided under Section 32 of the Act, 1872, in all other cases, the FIR is to be proved by the informant/complainant and the present case in hand does not fall within the said category. 6. It is further submitted that in case of Lalita (supra), the investigating officer had proved the FIR, which was disapproved by Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the investigating officer cannot prove the FIR. 7. It is further submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet, the charges have yet not been framed against the applicants. 8. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that apart from the FIR, there are other documentary evidences on record, which made out the case against the applicant and has further submitted that the applicant has a remedy to file a discharge application. 9. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present case may be dispose of with liberty to the applicant to move a discharge application before the court concerned, who may decide the same in accordance with law. 10. As such, the present case is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to move an application for discharge before the court concerned and if any such application is preferred on the instance of applicants, it is expected that the court concerned may decide it expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench