Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH YADAV versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Yadav v. The State of U.P. and others - WRIT - A No. 922 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 494 (9 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 922  of 2007

Ramesh Yadav

Versus

The State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature as Police constable. Petitioner appeared in physical test, written test and interview and thereafter petitioner has been finally selected. Thereafter petitioner has been sent for training. Petitioner was asked to furnish an affidavit for the purposes of verification of his character and antecedent. Petitioner filed affidavit mentioning therein categorical statement of fact that he has never been arrayed as an accused in any criminal case nor he has been charge sheeted nor he has been prosecuted. Petitioner was sent for training. On the basis of information, which was furnished by the petitioner qua verification of character and antecedent, verification has been made then it was reflected that against the petitioner a N.C.R. no. 213 of 2005 under Section 323/504/506 IPC at Police Station Cant, District Gorakhpur has been registered. On the ground that petitioner has not disclosed of his complicity in aforesaid criminal case, as such untruthful affidavit has been filed by the petitioner,  candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, contended with vehemence that affidavit which has been filed contains correct recital of fact, inasmuch as petitioner has acquired knowledge of the aforesaid N.C.R. no. 213 of 2005 under Section 323/504/506 IPC at Police Station Cant, District Gorakhpur only after impugned order in question has been passed, inasmuch as in alleged NCR case neither any police officer has ever came his place to make any investigation nor any Magistrate has ever gave any notice to the petitioner, and when petitioner has no knowledge of the said case then presumption which has been drawn is essentially incorrect presumption, as such petitioner's training cannot be cancelled and writ petition deserves of the allowed .  

Learned counsel representing the State on the other hand contended that wrongful affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, as such no interference be made by this Court and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position which has emerged is to the effect that an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disclosing therein that  he has never been arrayed as an accused in any criminal case nor he has been charge sheeted nor he has been prosecuted but subsequently on verification being made, it has been found that  N.C.R. no. 213 of 2005 under Section 323/504/506 IPC at Police Station Cant, District Gorakhpur has been registered against the petitioner. Petitioner has categorically contended that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid NCR case as at no point of time any police officer has ever came to his place to make any investigation nor any Magistrate has ever gave any notice to the petitioner and it was only after passing of impugned order in question that petitioner has acquired knowledge of the aforesaid NCR case.

As to whether petitioner had knowledge of the aforesaid Criminal case or not is essentially question of fact which requires factual investigation and the same can be very well looked into by the Senior Superintendent of Police Gorakhpur.

Undisputed position is that the case which has been registered against the petitioner is NCR case and NCR case is not at all liable to be investigated without there being any order of Magistrate.

In these circumstances and in this background as it has been alleged that entire proceedings is ex parte as such liberty is given to the petitioner to make fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order within three weeks from today before Senior Superintendent of Police Gorakhpur who shall look into grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order within next eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order alongwith representation.

It is made clear that till the fresh decision is not taken no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.  

With the above direction present writ petition is disposed of.

Dated: 9th January, 2007

  Dhruv


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.