Govind Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 17 Others

1. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No.943 of 2023 (Govind Gupta vs. Amit Kumar & Ors.) and order dated 19.10.2024 passed by Session Judge Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.613 of 2023 (Govind Gupta vs. Amit Kumar & Ors.).

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that bus of petitioner bearing Registration No. UP61 AT 3586 was seized by ARTO, Noida on 16.5.2022, who imposed fine of Rs.2,29,108/- upon the petitioner by alleging that his bus has 22 extra sleepers as well as 44 extra seats. When he challenged the said challan (fine) before the Magistrate court, respondent no.14 Parmanand (staff) appeared before the court and tendered his apology by admitted his fault. Learned counsel submitted that all the respondents colluded with each other with an intent to falsely seize the vehicle of the petitioner in order to harass him and to extort illegal money. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct registration of FIR against all 16 accused persons involved in harassing the petitioner and extorting money from him. However, his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 23.11.2023 by learned CJM by observing that said application was filed with mala fide intention.

4. It was submitted that aggrieved by the said order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned CJM in Case No.943 of 2023 (Govind Gupta vs. Amit Kumar & Ors.), the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.613 of 2023 (Govind Gupta vs. Amit Kumar & Ors.). Said criminal revision was also dismissed on 19.10.2024. Learned counsel submitted that both courts have not considered the allegations properly. The allegations made by the petitioner clearly reveal that all respondents had connived together in order to extort money from him. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court be pleased to set aside both orders and direct the concerned CJM to pass a fresh order after considering the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

5. Learned AGA submitted that a report was called from the concerned authorities by learned CJM before passing the impugned order. Said report reflects that 63 challans were issued against the petitioner and he had not deposited fines in respect of most of the challans. He submitted that the present challan issued against the petitioner was not the solitary challan, rather 63 challans had already been issued prior to it which reflects that the petitioner is habitual violator of motor vehicles rules.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is apparent from the allegations that the error committed by the respondent no.14 was admitted by him before the court concerned. Any error committed by any official during discharge of official duties cannot constitute an offence. It also seems that the petitioner, who is habitual in violating motor vehicles rules, had intently moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by arrayed 14 aggrieved officials as accused only with an intent to exert pressure upon them to stay away from taking action against him.

8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court are hereby upheld.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

SK