Shavez Khan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2935 of 2024
Shavez Khan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Dutt Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alind Kumar, G.A., Kiran Rani, Laloo
Yadav
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Dutt Tiwari, the learned counsel for revisionist, the
learned AGA for State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Laloo Yadav, the
learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2. Perused the record.
3. Revisionist Shavez Khan has preferred this Criminal Revision challenging
the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampur (hereinafter referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate) in Case No.
662/2022 Shavez Khan Vs. Rakesh Chand, Tehsildar, under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., Police Station Swar, District Rampur whereby the jurisdictional
magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
4. Feeling aggrieved from that order, this revision has been filed on the
ground that the impugned order is illegal, perverse to law and has been
passed without application of judicial mind, and is, therefore, liable to be set
aside.
5. The factual matrix of the case in short is that the revisionist filed an
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 05-09-2022, at 05:30
in the morning, he along with his father had gone to collect fodder for their
animals. After harvesting the fodder, they returned to the banks of the Kosi

CRLR No. 2935 of 2024
2
River in the Bhuvanra Ehtmali forest. At around 07:00 in the morning,
opposite party no. 2 accompanied by opposite party no. 3 and 4 and two
unknown persons having rifles in their hands, came from Akbarabad, started
giving filthy abuse to father of the revisionist and making allegation of
illegal mining against him. Opposite party no. 2 told opposite party nos. 3
and 4 to kill him by throwing him into the river. Upon hearing the noise, the
witnesses reached there. Then, at the behest of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4
threw the revisionist's father, into a deep riverbed and stood there until he
died. Two unknown persons pointed rifles at everyone and threatened to
shoot if anyone tried to save him. Responding to the revisionist's cries,
people gathered and pulled the dead body from the water. The revisionist's
uncle, filed a complaint at the police station, but no case was registered. The
body was neither sent to the District Hospital, Rampur, for post-mortem
examination, nor post-mortem report filed. The body remained on the banks
of the Kosi River until evening. The police themselves wrote a written
complaint on a plain paper signed by the revisionist's uncle. The same night,
a post-mortem report was filed. The revisionist sent applications to S.P.
Rampur in person and by speed post to get a report written in this regard, to
the Additional Director General of Police, Bareilly, to the Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow by speed post, and to the DIG,
Moradabad Division, Moradabad by speed post on 14-09-2022.
6. The Jurisdictional Magistrate, after calling for a report from the concerned
police station, rejected the application on the ground that opposite party no.
2 is a public servant and as per the directions passed by the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Ayyappa case , prior sanction
from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been made
mandatory for prosecuting a public servant, which is not available on record.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist submitted that the
permission under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required at the time of taking
cognizance meaning thereby if the matter is investigated and charge sheet is
filed against public servant without permission of initiation of criminal
proceeding issued by proper authority the Court cannot take cognizance on
the same i.e. different stage but such condition precedent does not apply to
the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thus it is contended that the
impugned order, having been passed on this erroneous ground, suffers from

CRLR No. 2935 of 2024
3
material irregularity and illegality, and is liable to be set aside by this Court.
8. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the criminal revision and
argued that according to the post mortem report, the cause of death was
asphyxia due to drowning. It is pertinent to mention that there is not external
injury on the part of dead body of deceased. It is remarkable that the family
of the deceased treated the death as accidental death and moved an
application for compensation under government scheme and received Rs.
Five Lakhs. Though the revisionist was tried to get said amount immediately
without following the process but opposite party no. 2 have no power to
grant such compensation immediately, the file was already forwarded by
opposite party no. 2 to higher authorities sitting at District Head Quarter and
the action in District Head Quarter was to be taken.
9. In this circumstances the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 had no opportunity
to do anything with that application but under his whim the revisionist was
making pressure on them and in that pursuance he filed such application
before jurisdictional magistrate. It is the dual standard of revisionist on one
hand he received compensation for accidental death of his father and on
other hand he wants to prosecute opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the same.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties referred page
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of counter affidavit dated 11.12.2025 and
urged that the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are public servant. Opposite
party no. 2 is Tehsildar and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are Lekhpal who
would have no enmity with the deceased, even no enmity has been shown in
application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. In such circumstances the story cooked
in application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is only a bundle of false and nothing more
and the jurisdictional magistrate rightly rejected the said application and
passed the impugned order.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist only
argued that the government insurance scheme is a beneficiary scheme and
since the revisionist's father died under unnatural condition and the cause of
death was asphyxia due to drowning so to get compensation against that is
his legal right under the scheme so he got it the same but though such
drowning of father of revisionist was caused by opposite party nos. 2, 3 and

CRLR No. 2935 of 2024
4
4 along with two persons, so he is trying to get them punished for the same.
12. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the material available
on record, this Court is of the view that accidental death and homicidal death
are two different facts. A homicidal death cannot be construed or treated as
accidental death.
13. According to the Oxford Dictionaries, word accident is a noun having
meaning:- an unpleasant event that happens unexpectedly and causes
damage, injury or death. According to Cambridge Dictionary accident means
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often
damages something or injuries someone. According to Wikipedia an
is an unintended and usually undesirable event that is not
accident
deliberately caused by humans. Although in ordinary conversations,
intentionality is the only factor most people consider, formally, accidents
require three factors: it must be unintended, unpreventable, and
unexpected. The term accident usually implies the presence of unrecognized
or unaddressed risks.
14. An accident is a event that unintentionally happened, that results in
damage, injury or harm. An accident is an event that has unintentionally
happened, but this may or may not result any damage, harm or injury.
Further more it is an undesirable or unintended and usually results as any
harm injury damage or loss. It signifies a mishap, chance occurrence, or an
unplanned incident. Synonyms include misfortune, calamity, disaster,
mishap, and chance.
15. An accident is an unplanned and unintentional event that especially
resulting in injury damage or harm. An incident is a broader term for any
unplanned event, including those that do not cause harm (near misses).
Essentially all accidents are incidents but not all incidents are accidents. In
contrast, a homicidal death is the result of an incident which has defined
meaning other than accident.
16. When a person performs any action without any malafide intention to
cause harm but due to inadvertence the result of such action came out
differently without the intentional role of doer meaning thereby the result of
act as intended by his it's doer was against his hope. On the other hand a

CRLR No. 2935 of 2024
5
crime is result of an intentional act. In such circumstance, I am of the view
that the accidental death and a homicidal death is different to each other both
cannot be summarized in one definition. In such circumstance, if the
revisionist has claimed compensation for accidental death of the deceased,
he cannot claim it as homicidal death. In such situation, though the trial
court's ground for rejecting the Application U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was not
good in law, but otherwise the story presented by the revisionist before
jurisdictional magistrate cannot be considered as true, and, therefore, no
interference by this Court with the impugned order is required.
17. Accordingly, the criminal revision, is hereby dismissed .
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
April 22, 2026
Arti
Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad