JITENDRA KUMAR RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

        MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14149 of 2025

Jitendra Kumar Rai
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         :   Brijesh Kumar Rai, Vijai Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)         :   G.A., Sadhu Sharan

Court No. - 89
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA
for the State are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast-track
Court-1, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024 (Jitendra Kumar
Rai Vs State of up and others) as well as the order dated 16.05.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Complaint
Case No. 2676 of 2023 (Jitendrakumar Rai Vs Mohd. Ibrar Ahmed and
others).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an FIR in Case Crime
No. 1136 of 2016, under Sections 324, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station
Suhwal, District Ghazipur, was lodged against him at the instance of
respondent no. 5. It was submitted that the petitioner was posted as a
Constable in District Bhadohi and remained posted there from 01.09.2016 to
30.09.2016. However, the concerned Investigating Officer recorded his
statement and mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner's statement was
recorded at District Ghazipur. It was further submitted that the concerned
I.O. intentionally made a false entry and recorded an incorrect statement in
the case diary by falsely showing the presence of the petitioner in District
Ghazipur at the relevant time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M.,
Ghazipur, but the same was dismissed on the ground that, even if the
allegations in the application were assumed to be true, they would constitute
an offence for which only a complaint under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. was
maintainable.
                                                          A227 No. 14149 of 2025
                                 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by
the learned C.J.M. are illegal, as the allegations against the concerned I.O.
are covered under Sections 167 and 218 IPC, both of which are cognizable
offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years. He further
submitted that, aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2024, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024 (Jitendra Kumar Rai vs. State
of U.P. and another). However, the said criminal revision was also
dismissed, the revisional court concurring with the findings of the learned
C.J.M. that the alleged offences could not be prosecuted through an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and that proceedings in respect
thereof could only be initiated by filing a complaint under Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C. It was argued that the conduct of the concerned I.O. clearly
amounted to offences under Sections 167 and 218 IPC, but both the courts
below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that, even if the allegations of the petitioner are
accepted in their entirety, the acts of the I.O. do not fall within the ambit of
Sections 167 and 218 IPC. It was argued that no injury or harm was caused
to the petitioner merely because the I.O. wrongly mentioned in the case diary
that the petitioner's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in
District Ghazipur, whereas he was allegedly present in District Bhadohi. It
was further submitted that, even if such conduct was deliberate, it neither
caused nor intended to cause any injury or harm to the petitioner. Therefore,
the orders passed by the learned C.J.M. and the revisional court do not
warrant interference by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court
has also considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that
the act of the I.O. amounted to offences under Sections 167 and 218 IPC. A
bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that preparation of an
incorrect record constitutes an offence only where such act is intended to
cause injury to any person or to save any person from lawful punishment.

7. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid case
crime. Even if his statement was wrongly shown in the case diary as having
been recorded at District Ghazipur, despite his alleged presence in District
Bhadohi, the same does not appear to have caused any injury or harm either
to the petitioner or to any other person. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no offence under Sections 167 or 218 IPC is made
out against the concerned I.O. merely on account of the incorrect mention of
the place where the petitioner's statement was recorded.
                                                                                      A227 No. 14149 of 2025
                                                                3

                                    8. Accordingly, the orders dated 15.09.2025 and 16.05.2024 are hereby
                                    upheld. The present petition stands dismissed.

                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Ujjawal
                                                                                       (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad