Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIVEK KUMAR ALIAS PANKAJ versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vivek Kumar Alias Pankaj v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 47405 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14916 (30 August 2006)

 

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. 47405 of 2006

Vivek Kumar @ Pankaj

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner was selected as male constable in U.P. Police. After his selection petitioner has reported to police line for the purposes of training. Petitioner was provided Proforma of affidavit which was required and submitted to the authority concerned.  In affidavit so filed petitioner gave categorical declaration that at no point of time any criminal case has been registered and nor any criminal case is pending against him. It has further been categorically mentioned that in the event of any averment made in the affidavit is found incorrect then selection of petitioner is liable to be cancelled. For the purposes for verification of character and antecedent report was called for from the concerned Police Station wherein it has been found that a criminal case No. 48 of 2003 under Sections 148/394/325/452/504/506 IPC has been registered on 12.03.2003 against him.  After this report has been submitted on the premises that incorrect declaration has been furnished by the petitioner and as such there is concealment of fact, candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Yatindra, contended with vehemence that criminal case No. 48 of 2003 under Sections 148/394/325/452/504/506 IPC has been registered on 12.03.2003 against petitioner and at that point of time petitioner was minor and petitioner has no knowledge of the aforesaid case, inasmuch as, in the said criminal case at no point of time any arrest was made or any investigation was done from the petitioner and further final report dated 13.03.2003 has been submitted on the very next day of lodging of F.I.R., as such entire action is arbitrary. Contention of the petitioner is that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case, as such declaration which was made is correct declaration made by him and his candidature ought not to have been cancelled on this score.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that wrongful declaration has been made by the petitioner, as such no interference be made, as such writ petition be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed  factual position which has emerged is to the effect that declaration has been made by the petitioner that at no point of time any criminal case has been registered nor any criminal case was pending against him, whereas the fact of the matter is that criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Consequently action taken in term of affidavit submitted by petitioner himself cannot be faulted.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. On 12.03.2006 petitioner has contended that he was minor and at no point of time any arrest has been made and at no point of time petitioner was investigated in the said criminal case and final report dated 13.03.2003 was submitted on the very next date of registering of the First Information Report and in this background petitioner submits that there was occasion for him to have knowledge of aforesaid criminal case, and make declaration.

Consequently as to whether petitioner has knowledge or not of the aforesaid criminal case is essentially question of fact and it is for the authority concerned to satisfy themselves on this score as to whether petitioner has any knowledge or not of the aforesaid criminal case.  

Consequently as petitioner has contended that he has no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case as such liberty is given to the petitioner to make fresh representation within three weeks from today alongwith the certified copy of this order before Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur respondent No. 2 who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law within next six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

With the above direction present writ petition is disposed of.

30.08.2006

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.