Vishwa Nath Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9583 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5075 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vishwa Nath Shukla
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Prabhakar Awasthi,Shashikant Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Sri Shashikant Mishra and Sri J.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 15.03.2023 registered as Case Crime No.57 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur and direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned first information report.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention towards various litigation on civil sides and several judgments and orders passed by this Court as well as the order passed by various authorities. Submission is being made that in entire litigation, there was no allegation of committing any such forgery, and therefore, the petitioner herein who is 82 years of age has been falsely implicated in the present case for allegedly some forged documents were prepared for the purpose of getting the primary sanction of Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. Submission, therefore, is that no offence is made against the petitioner and simply because there is rejection of the claim of the teachers pursuant to the judgement and order of this Court dated 20.06.2022 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 40077 of 2017 (Nagesh Kumar Srivastava and others vs State of U.P. and others), it still cannot be said that any offence is made out against the petitioner.

Per contra, learned AGA submits that a bare reading of the first information report discloses cognizable offence.

We further find that in the first information report there is mention of reply of Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) who was asked to certify as to whether he has signed on the document and that he had given reply dated 05.11.2022 that he has not signed any such document and signature existing on the document is not his signature and apparently the signature is forged one.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the record, we find that a case of cognizable offence is made out and no ground for interference is made out.

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.4.2023

A.Kr.