Ashutosh Pathak vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 4552 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22137 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Ashutosh Pathak
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Surya Pratap Singh Parmar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.

Complaint case is being carried out against applicant Ashutosh Pathak and Gram Pradhan, Raipur Pokhta for offences of cheating and misappropriation of public money. In said matter, applicant and co-accused had been summoned for offences under Sections 420, 409 IPC. The proceedings of this concerned complaint case no. 5466/2015 is under challenge through present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after approaching the matter in different proceeding before this Court and under direction of the Court, both the accused persons including applicant had deposited the amount of Rs. 38,980/- each, for which they were found liable. His contention was that in these circumstances, no proceeding should be carried out. His further argument was that complainant has no locus standi to file complaint case. His next argument was that the alleged act was done by applicant in discharge of his official duty, because applicant was posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at the time of incident, so without prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the proceedings before trial court cannot be carried out.

These contentions were refuted by learned AGA.

So far argument of right to institute criminal complaint by private person is concerned, it is settled legal position that principle of locus standi has no application in criminal jurisprudence. Public money was involved in this matter, for which any person of public has right to initiate criminal proceeding against guilty person.

So far matter of prosecution sanction and alleged act being done in discharge of official duty is concerned, this is settled legal position that if any overt act is committed during discharge of duty, then prosecution sanction is required. But it has to be decided whether the alleged act of misappropriation of fund comes within official discharge of duty of applicant or not. This matter may be decided by trial court, if application in that regard is moved by applicant after appearance and surrender before the court below. Again this matter may be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

The impugned summoning order has been passed after appreciating facts and evidences and after following procedure of law. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the proceedings being carried out before trial court that may require exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. Therefore, this application is dismissed.

Applicant is directed to appear before trial court immediately.

Order Date :- 27.7.2016

SR