Sushma Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9284 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23300 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Sushma Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

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

This applicant, through the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 4.5.2022 passed by A.S.J./FTC-I, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 7 of 2018 (State Vs. Pradeep and others) arising out of case crime no. 194 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 324, 504 IPC and section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment At, PS. Newadia, District Jaunpur.

From the perusal of the record it transpires that the statement of informant Sushma Singh, who is P.W. 1 and eye witnesses Sapna Singh and Sonam Singh were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. where in they have not made any specific allegation against the said accused Rajdhari Singh.

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 order is based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reason, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence, no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

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

Order Date :- 4.8.2022/RPD