Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 200380 (ALL)

VIVEK PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. U.P. LKO. AND 4OTHERS

/1425/2025 · 2025-10-13

Rajeev Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1425 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Purusharth Prem, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.189/2025 arising out of Case Crime No.8/2024 under Section 7 P.C. Act, Police Station U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Kanpur Sector, District Kanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by making a fabricated trap by vigilance officials. He also submits that allegation against the applicant is that he asked money for changing the duty of an Assistant Teacher from election, thereafter, on her complaint, trap team was organized and trap was conducted. He further submits that applicant has no concern with the deployment of any Assistant Teacher in the election duty and the alleged money was also not recovered from hands of the applicant but forcibly his hand was washed by the officials of the vigilance team. He also submits that there is no independent witnesses of the alleged trap, however, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, thereafter, discharge application was filed but the same was rejected by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Purusharth Prem, Abhishek Awasthi, Saurabh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vivek Pandey .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 4others .....Opposite Party(s) learned court below in the most mechanical manner without considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the F.I.R. name of the team leader as well informant was mentioned as Pradeep Kumar, Inspector, U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Kanpur but in the charge sheet, name of the informant is mentioned as Dharamveer Singh, who was member of the trap team, therefore, the investigation was conducted in the most casual manner and charge sheet was submitted in the most mechanical manner. He also submits that number of currency note, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant was also corrected after ten days which creates doubts on the recovery memo, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 5. Specific question was asked from the counsel for the applicant about the status of trial, then he informed that two witnesses have already been examined and trial is going on. 6. Sri Mukesh Singh, learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the applicant and submits that trap was conducted on the complaint of one of the Assistant Teacher after constituting a trap team in accordance with the law and cash of Rs.5000/- was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. He further submits that submission of the applicant cannot be considered in the discharge application and all the defence can be considered at the appropriate stage, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and present application may be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, as the defence of the applicant cannot be considered in the discharge application and merely in the charge sheet the name of the informant is mentioned Dharamveer Singh, who was member of trap team, charge sheet cannot be vitiated, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the NA528 No. 1425 of 2025 2 impugned order and present application is misconceived. 8. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. 9. However, it is open to the trial court to conclude the trial, expeditiously in accordance with the law. October 13, 2025 GauraV/- NA528 No. 1425 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench