Allahabad High Court
Atul And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3152 of 2022
Revisionist :- Atul And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh vksj ls ;g nkf.Md fuxjkuh] eq0v0la0 1133 lu 2020] vUrxZr /kkjk 323 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk [kqtkZ uxj] ftyk cqyUn'kgj ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 469 lu 2021 esa ,fM'kuy ls'kUl tt] dksVZ ua0 7] cqyUn'kgj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fn0 25&5&2022 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA
fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA
fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFkku gS fd iz'uxr vkns'k fn0 25&5&2022 }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dks ryc djus laca/kh vkns'k leqfpr foospuk ij vk/kkfjr ugha gS] blfy, iz'rxr vkns'k fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd iz'uxr vkns'k] /kkjk 161 ,oa 164 na0iz0la0 ds c;ku ,oa vU; lk{;ksa dk ifj'khyu djus ds i'pkr ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ldkj.k vkns'k gS rFkk mlesa dksbZ =qfV ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gSA
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fd, x, lHkh rF; fookfnr iz'u ls lacaf/kr gSa] fdlh O;fDr ds fo:) rych vkns'k ;k izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds Lrj ij dsoy ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd eqyfteku ds f[kykQ izFke n`"V;k dksbZ ekeyk curk gS ;k ugha] ftl ij /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds rgr fu.kZ; ugha fy;k tk ldrkA bl Lrj ij dsoy izFke n`"V;k ekeyk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 ds ekeyksa esa fu/kkZfjr dkuwu ds vkyksd esa ns[kk tkuk gSA bl Lrj ij vfHk;qDr ds fookfnr cpko ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2021 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh decided on 30.07.2021 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd %&
"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 CrPC 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 CrPC. 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 CrPC, after investigation."
rn~uqlkj vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk mijksDr okn ls lacaf/kr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus dh izkFkZuk vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ;g vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
fn0 % 8&8&2022
ds0lh0flag
