Dinanath Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 11901 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2516 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Dinanath Mishra And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Pandey,Srestha Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The revisionists through the present revision has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.4.2022 and order dated 27.1.2022 passed on application 7ga and application 5Ga seeking discharge in Sessions Trial No. 952 of 2021 (State Vs. Deena Nath Mishra and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 309 of 2014, under section 307/427 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, Prayagraj.

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the court below has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist in spite of it that no date, place and time has been mentioned in the FIR. Further argued that the FIR has been written by constable Jai Shankar Pandey, he has also stated that facts as mentioned in the FIR do not support the story also as mentioned in the F.I.R.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has placed the reliance in the case of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh in which it is stated that, "Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of Cr PC, after investigation."

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record, I am of the view that impugned orders are based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reason, the same do not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence, no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned orders are refused.

The revision lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.8.2022

RPD