HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13630 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra Dhay Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.K.Sand, learned counsel for respondent and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 353 of 2024 (Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo V/s State of U.P. & others) passed by the Session Judge, Moradabad and order dated 17.09.2024 of Misc. Case No. 598 of 2024 (Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo V/s State of U.P. & others) passed by learned C.J.M., Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Shwetab Tiwari was shot dead in Moradabad on 15.02.2023, pursuant to which an FIR was lodged on 16.02.2023 in Case Crime No. 104 of 2023, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. It was contended that the police officials apprehended the petitioner on 16.03.2023 at about 5:00 p.m. and kept him in illegal detention till 30.03.2023. Thereafter, his arrest was formally shown on 31.03.2023. In the meantime, Sangita Sharma, sister of the petitioner, moved an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the concerned CJM alleging illegal detention of the petitioner. Considering the allegations made therein, the learned CJM directed the police authorities to produce CCTV footage of Police Station Majhola to substantiate the claim that the petitioner was kept in illegal custody at the said police station. However, a report was submitted stating that the CCTV cameras of the police station were non- functional. Consequently, the learned CJM directed the SDM Sadar to submit a report regarding the said claim of the police authorities. The SDM Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Vineet Vikram Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Sand, G.A., Ghanshyam Das Mishra Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Sadar submitted a report stating that the CCTV cameras had remained non- functional since 10.03.2023. It was further stated that an entry in the General Diary of Police Station Majhola was also made on 10.03.2023 mentioning that the CCTV cameras were not working and that a request for their repair had been sent to the S.P., Moradabad. On the basis of the said reports, the application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner's sister was disposed of. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner, after being granted bail, filed an application under the RTI Act on 22.04.2024 seeking information regarding the functionality of CCTV cameras at Police Station Majhola. In response, it was informed that the CCTV cameras at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, were continuously functional from January 2022 to December 2023. The petitioner received the said information on 05.06.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned CJM, registered as Criminal Case No. 1586 of 2024 (Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo vs. SDM Sadar and others), alleging that the respondents had illegally detained him from 15.03.2023 to 30.03.2023 and that, in order to shield the actual culprits belonging to the police department, a misleading report was submitted by the SDM and others stating that the CCTV cameras were non-functional from 10.03.2023 onwards. It was further alleged that such concealment was evident from the reply furnished by the authorities in response to the RTI application dated 22.04.2024. However, the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected on 15.09.2024 on the ground that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and had initiated criminal proceedings against the respondents to exert pressure upon them. Learned counsel submitted that merely because a person has a criminal history, he does not forfeit his legal rights, and no authority is vested with the power to illegally detain a history-sheeter with the intent to falsely implicate him in a criminal case which he never committed. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the acts attributed to the respondents clearly constitute offences of cheating and forgery. It was also submitted that, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 1586 of 2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 353 of 2024 (Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo vs. State of U.P. and others), which too came to be dismissed on 13.08.2025, affirming the findings recorded in the order dated 17.09.2024. It was argued that the conduct of the respondents prima facie constitutes an offence and that both the courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. 6. Learned AGA, as well as learned counsel for the respondents, submitted A227 No. 13630 of 2025 2 that the allegations made in the application are baseless and unsubstantiated, and even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the respondents. It was contended that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed against the then SDM Sadar, Moradabad, and the then SHO of Police Station Majhola. The SDM Sadar conducted an inquiry and submitted his report stating that the CCTV cameras were non- functional. It was submitted that an officer discharging official duties and submitting an inquiry report cannot be held liable for furnishing a false report unless material to the contrary is brought on record. It was further submitted that neither of the respondents was responsible for the maintenance or day-to-day functioning of the CCTV cameras, as such work is carried out by technical personnel having no concern with any individual. It was also pointed out that the GD entry dated 10.03.2023 clearly reflects that the cameras were non-functional on that date and that a report had been sent to the concerned SSP for repair. It was argued that even if it is assumed that the authorities intended to detain the petitioner illegally, it cannot be presumed that they anticipated in advance that an FIR would be lodged on 16.03.2023 and, therefore, made a GD entry on 10.03.2023 to cover up such alleged illegal detention. It was thus submitted that none of the impugned orders suffers from any illegality. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Even if the allegations made by the petitioner are taken to be true, at the most, the same may constitute an offence relating to giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. In a situation where it is alleged that a person has given false evidence or fabricated evidence during the course of judicial proceedings with the intent to mislead the Court, obtain a favourable order, or conceal true facts, such acts would attract offences under Sections 191 and 192 IPC. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved party is to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and not by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above, even though the findings recorded by the courts below may not strictly align with the factual assertions made by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself was not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. April 15, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 13630 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad