Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34220 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4338 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Mishra,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Shri Kuldeep Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now Section 528 B.N.S.S, 2023 has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 11960 of 2021, State of U.P. vs. Sandeep Srivastava arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2018, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow as well as the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant without considering the evidence and material on record of the case. He further submits that the vehicle in question used to remain in the custody of the department and the Nazir has also stated in his statement that the vehicle was parked in the department on the alleged date of the incident. He further submits that the applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of an F.I.R. at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, which was allowed by means of the order dated 28.05.2018. But the report could not be lodged because the F.I.R. was already lodged in the aforesaid case. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned summoning order and the charge sheet are not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned AGA submits that F.I.R. has been lodged specifically stating that the vehicle in question was not brought by the applicant on the date of incident and he has also not seen in the CCTV Footage. He further submits that Nazir has nowhere stated that the vehicle was parked by the applicant. Thus, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record, it is apparent that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the Vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No. UP 32 EN 8523 was attached with Sales Tax Office, Gomti Nagar. On 15.01.2018 at 6.00 P.M., it was stolen. While the vehicle was being driven by the applicant-Sandeep Srivastava and the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV Footage. Nazir, whose statement is annexed as Annexure N0.4 to the petition, does not indicate that the applicant had parked the vehicle in the department on 15.01.2018. He stated that after leaving the Officer, the applicant had asked as to whether there is any work or not and on the next date, it was found that the vehicle-Bolero was missing. Thus, he has not stated that the vehicle was parked in the department. The charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 406 I.P.C. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived and not tenable. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. now 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. Order Date :- 2.6.2025 Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench