Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 23 June, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ved Prakash Vaish
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 12652 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.
Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State-respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0509 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at police station Aliganj, District Lucknow with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had moved Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. no. 3285 of 2021, which was rejected by learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.03.2021, with liberty to the applicant/petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail within a period of two weeks, during which no coercive action would be taken against him, but the petitioner could not surrender before the trial Court, therefore, moved an application for quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn our attention towards paragraph 12 in judgment and order passed in Misc. Bench No.25222 of 2020 of another case, in which the Court held that so far as the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail is concerned, scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much larger than the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
He further submitted that co-accused persons have challenged the impugned FIR in Misc. Bench No.35453 of 2019 and Misc. Bench No.121 of 2020, in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court have disposed of the petition on 07.01.2020 with an observation that all the accused officers are public servant, therefore, they would be arrested only after credible evidence is collected by the Prosecuting Agency against them.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and submitted that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner in the impugned FIR and it is a case of embezzlement and the petitioner is a public servant (clerk), thus, the relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, as there is an allegation against the petitioner, who was Pradhan Sahayak in the Panchayati Raj Directorate, for making alteration at a wide scale and preparing an incorrect list for the distribution of performance grant and other related issues to the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Director, Panchayati Raj and in that process, the Gram Panchayat, which were entitled for performance grant, could not avail the benefit of the said scheme and unauthorized Gram Panchayat were given performance grant. The allegations were levelled against the petitioner along with co-accused, who were the members of the said Committee, that the co-accused in conspiracy with the petitioner prepared fabricated documents for the said purpose due to which unauthorized Gram Panchayat got the performance grant. The petitioner being a public servant, for which FIR has been lodged against him under the offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Penal offences, appears to be actively involved in the commission of offence.
So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of order passed in the matter of co-accused persons in the case of Misc. Bench No.35453 of 2019; Girish Chandra Raja vs. State of U.P. and Misc. Bench No.121 of 2020; Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. is concerned, we are of the opinion that if the FIR which discloses a cognizable offence it cannot be quashed, then no interim relief can be granted as has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779.
It further transpires from the record that the petitioner had moved Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. no. 3285 of 2021, which was rejected on 17.03.2021 and the petitioner instead of moving a regular bail application has filed this petition praying for quashing of impugned FIR. So far as observation made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.25222 of 2020 of another case is concerned, we do not wish to exercise the same in the present case looking to the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner and also in view of the law laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 13.04.2021 the present writ petition is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Ved Prakash Vaish, J.)(Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 23.6.2021
Arnima
