Anita Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Brij Raj Singh, J

The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3441 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.489 of 2013, Anita Vs. Satyendra Nath Shukla and others, under Sections 323, 384, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

It is the case of the applicant that on the basis of false and fabricated story an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No.416 of 2013, under Sections 307 and 504 IPC against the husband of the applicant showing the incident occurred at the house of the applicant i.e. 5/585, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 02.09.2013 and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420 and 471 IPC against him on 17.09.2020 and the trial is continuing in Session Trial No.2707 of 2025 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge A.T.S., Lucknow. In fact, the applicant herself approached the police station concerned for registration of the FIR in respect of the incident occurred on 02.09.2013 at her house by opposite party no.2 with his associates, who had beaten brutally the applicant and her husband as well as caused injuries to the applicant and her mother-in-law, but the police did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter, the applicant having no other alternate, approached the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, on which an order was passed for registration of the FIR.

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, an FIR was registered at Case Crime No.489 of 2013, under Sections 323, 383 and 506 IPC at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow against opposite party no.2 and other accused persons making allegations that on 02.09.2013 at 12 Noon, opposite party no.2 along with one Anuj Bajpai and some unknown persons reached at her house situated at 5/585, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and assaulted the applicant, her husband and her mother¬in-law and caused injuries to them. It is alleged that after investigation, the Investigating Officer in collusion with opposite party no.2 and under his influence, filed final report under Section 169 Cr.P.C on 05.11.2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, who was pleased to issue notice to the applicant and registered the as Misc. Case No.1139 of 2014.

Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid, the applicant filed a protest application, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed an order rejecting the final report and directing for registration of a complaint case, pursuant to which the same was registered as Complaint Case No.3441 of 2015 and the matter is pending for its adjudication in the court. After recording the statement of the applicant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the trial court issued summons against opposite party no.2 and other accused persons vide order dated 06.05.2015. It is said that since opposite party no.2 and other co accused person were not appearing in the court after service of summons to face the trial proceeding, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow issued non-bailable warrants against them vide order dated 15.09.2016.

It is further said that applicant filed an application under Section 223(d) Cr.P.C before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for transfer of the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge A.T.S. Lucknow and be connected with Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.416 of 2013 being a cross-case as the incident is the same, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow after considering the fact that both the cases viz. Case Crime No.416 of 2013 and Complaint Case No.3441 of 2015 relate with the same incident, allowed the application vide order dated 17.10.2025 and directed that both cases be tried together being a cross-case and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in view of the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions, but the Sessions Judge returned the case to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that one of the co-accused, namely, Anuj Bajpai is still absconding and without ensuring the presence of all accused, the case could not be committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application on 04.11.2025 for separation of Complaint Case No.3441 of 2015 from the case of co-accused Anuj Bajpai, but the learned Magistrate without considering the relevant facts and without application of mind, rejected the aforesaid application in a most illegal and arbitrary manner vide order dated 11.12.2025.

Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial court cannot reject the application on the ground that co-accused Anuj Bajpai has not appeared in the case. Once an application for separation of case is filed, the same should have been allowed and the case should have been sent to the Sessions Court. It is submitted that vide order dated 11.12.2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has reviewed his earlier order dated 17.10.2025, which is not permissible in law. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

i. Nathi Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 145 (Para-2)

ii. Sudhir and others Vs. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 688 (Para-11)

On the other hand, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, counsel for opposite party no.2 by filing counter affidavit has submitted that applicant filed the present application with the prayer that Complaint Case No.344 of 2015, arising out of Crime No.489 of 2013, under Sections 323, 384, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow be connected with Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, arising out of Crime No.416 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420, 471 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, ATS, Lucknow on the ground that it is a cross-case to the aforesaid Sessions Trial, wherein it is alleged that mother-in-law of the applicant called opposite party no.2, who is working as Librarian in the College, to her city office of the College, namely, Satyanand Uchch Shiksha Sansthan situated at 5/585, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to get arrears of salary, where the husband of the applicant, namely, Anshuman Pandey made multiple fires on opposite party no.2. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 was rushed to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Hospital, Hazratganj, Lucknow, from where he was referred to the King George Medical University, Lucknow.

Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that Anshuman Pandey, who is wanted in Crime No.416 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 201, 419, 420, 471 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, absconded for seven years from date of the incident and later on he was arrested in the year 2020 at Varanasi. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, State Vs. Anshuman Pandey, and the trial is progressing in it. It is submitted that Anshuman Pandey was denied bail by the Sessions Court and thereafter the High Court also rejected the short term bail as well as the regular bail of Anshuman Pandey. Thereafter, Anshuman Pandey filed Special Leave Petition No.2005 of 2021 against the bail rejection orders by the High Court, Lucknow. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2021 granted interim bail to Anshuman Pandey for a period of three months from the date of release with a direction that after the period of short term bail, he would surrender before concerned jail authorities.

Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that after release on short term bail, Anshuman Pandey jumped the interim bail and absconded for three and a half years and later on he was arrested by the U.P.S.T.F. from Chandigarh. Thereafter, Anshuman Pandey filed misc. application in Special Leave Petition No.2005 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed him to file an application for bail before the Sessions Court, pursuant to which Anshuman Pandey filed the bail application before the Sessions Court Lucknow and the same was rejected by it. Thereafter, Anshuman Pandey filed Bail Application No.12858 of 2024 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 03.01.2025.

Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted opposite party no.2, being the complainant/injured, filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.6991 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 03.01.2025 granting bail to Anshuman Pandey by the High Court, Lucknow and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to arrest Anshuman Pandey and produce him before it. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, Anshuman Pandey was produced before Hon'ble Supreme Court in custody on 09.05.2025. On 21.05.2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order fixing the case for 24.07.2025 and also directed the police to produce the list of witnesses before the Sessions Court and the Session Court was directed to complete the evidence of vulnerable and vital witnesses listing the case at least twice in a month. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.6991 of 2025 vide order dated 26.02.2026 making the interim bail dated 04.08.2025 to be absolute till conclusion of the trial with further direction to the Sessions Court, ATS. Lucknow to make an endeavour to conclude the trial within six months. It is submitted that the trial is at the stage of recording evidence.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that husband of the applicant, namely, Anshuman Pandey had evaded the trial court proceedings for many years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 26.02.2026 directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months. He has further submitted that as many as nine witnesses have been examined by the trial court in Session Trial No.2707 of 2025 and the trial is at the concluding stage and only less than three months left as per the timeline given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 clearly indicates that applicant had not taken steps in pursuance of the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for issuing non-bailable warrant and to initiate proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against co-accused Anuj Bajpai, therefore, the said orders could not have ben executed. The aforesaid order further indicates that applicant had taken steps only on 01.11.2025, pursuant to which the court issued process and the compliance report is awaited. Unless co-accused Anuj Bajpai appears before the trial court, the case cannot be tried together because it is a complaint case. He has also submitted that in view of Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. the complainant has to take steps and if she has not taken steps, then it is default on her part and the trial court is waiting for the compliance report. Once the compliance report comes, fresh order can be passed, but at this juncture, this Court cannot interfere in any manner. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court is minutely observing the day-to-day progress of the trial in Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, therefore, any direction issued by this Court in this regard amounts to interference in the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.02.2026.

Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA has submitted that after appearance of co-accused Anuj Bajpai, applicant may move an application before the Sessions Court and it can summon the complaint case and thereafter both the cases to be tried together.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On 26.02.2026, Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.6991 of 2025 filed by opposite party no.2 against the husband of applicant and others regarding progress of Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.416 of 2013, passed the following order:-

"1. We are informed by the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is ongoing and a substantial part of the prosecution evidence has been presented. Further, there is no incident of misuse of concession of bail by respondent no.1.

Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel representing respondent no.1 assures that he will fully cooperate with the ongoing trial and shall abide by the conditions imposed at the time interim bail was granted. Therefore, as of now, we see no reason The interim bail granted to to keep these proceedings pending. respondent No.1 is made absolute till the conclusion of trial subject to the conditions that respondent No.1 and his counsel shall continue to cooperate with the ongoing trial and shall not violate the conditions imposed while granting interim bail. direct the trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the trial within six months.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of with pending application(s), if any."

The trial in the said case is at the final stage because as many as nine witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for further evidence and six months timeline stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is going to expire on 26.08.2026.

The record reveals that in Complaint Case No.3441 of 2015 opposite party no.2 and Anuj Bajpai were summoned under Sections 325, 504, 506 and 384 IPC. Opposite party no.2 was bailed out and the case was sent to the Sessions Court vide order dated 17.10.2025, which was returned back with the observation that since co-accused Anuj Bajpai is absconding, the complaint case could not be clubbed and tried together with Session Trial No.2707 of 2025. The record further reveals that non-bailable warrant and the order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also passed against co-accused Anuj Bajpai in the case, but the applicant did not take steps. Thereafter, applicant had taken steps for execution of the non-bailable warrant and the order passed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 01.11.2025 and the compliance report is still awaited, therefore, the trial court rejected the application for separating the case and again issued non-bailable warrant and order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 11.12.2025 and the applicant has been directed to take steps for compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The complaint has been filed by the applicant against two accused i.e. opposite party no.2 and Anuj Bajpai and unless the compliance report is obtained by the Magistrate, he could not have passed the order for separating the case and as soon as compliance report is received, the trial court will proceed with the case. It is the applicant who had not taken steps, therefore, the Magistrate has passed a fresh order for taking steps so that compliance report can be obtained. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court is minutely observing the day-to-day progress of the trial in Session Trial No.2707 of 2025, therefore, any direction issued by this Court at this stage amounts to interference in the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.02.2026. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

Application being devoid of merit, is rejected.