Allahabad High Court
VIKAS SHARMA @ GUGGOOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable; the correct remedy for alleged false evidence is a prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Sharma, alleged that he was illegally detained by police from 15‑03‑2023 to 30‑03‑2023 and that a false report claiming non‑functional CCTV cameras was filed to conceal the misconduct. He sought relief under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after an RTI response indicated the cameras were functional during the period in question. The lower courts dismissed his application, holding that his criminal history did not strip him of rights but that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence. The High Court examined whether the respondents’ alleged false report amounted to an offence and concluded that, even if true, it would attract Sections 191 and 192 IPC, for which the proper remedy is a prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C., not a Section 156(3) application. Consequently, the Court held the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s allegations of illegal detention and false CCTV report disclose a cognizable offence justifying a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application.
- Whether a history‑sheeter can be denied procedural relief.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for alleged false evidence is a prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. rather than a Section 156(3) application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 340, 97
- Indian Penal Code — s. 191, 192
- Right to Information Act, 2005
Subjects
- illegal detention
- CCTV evidence
- false report
- Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Section 340 Cr.P.C.
- Indian Penal Code
- Right to Information Act
- Article 227 jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13630 of 2025
Vikas Sharma @ Guggoo
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Sand, G.A.,
Ghanshyam Das Mishra
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
A227 No. 13630 of 2025
2
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
3
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
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…