Allahabad High Court
Mahmood Akhtar Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26667 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahmood Akhtar Siddiqui
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Tandon,Punit Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 23.4.2007 as well as the cognizance order dated 2.11.2007 and the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.32 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Rakshpal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.258 of 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Prayagraj.
3. The only ground which has been taken in support of the present petition, is that the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings on merit. The enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings has been placed on record by way of second supplementary affidavit tendered today in the Court on behalf of the petitioner. In the said enquiry report dated 12.5.2017, it has been specifically held that two persons, namely, Manoj Kumar and Brijendra Singh, who were allegedly given the appointment on the basis of forged documents under Dying-in-Harness Rules, their recruitment process got completed before the petitioner had joined Section 18A.
4. Considering the said fact, the enquiry officer had held that the petitioner had no role to play for giving appointment to Manoj Kumar and Brijendra Singh on the basis of the forged documents under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner, thus, has been exonerated on merit in the disciplinary proceedings.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendraath Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another, (2020) 9 SCC 636, has summarised the law in respect of the criminal proceedings if the accused has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings on merit. The Supreme Court in the said judgement has taken note of the judgement rendered in the case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and another, (2011) 3 SCC 581 and held that if in disciplinary proceedings the accused has been acquitted on merit, the chances for conviction in the criminal proceedings would be bleak and in such a situation, the criminal proceedings should be closed.
6. Considering the enquiry report and the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), this Court finds that the chances of conviction of the petitioner in Special Session Trail No.32 of 2007 (State of U.P. vs Rakshpal Singh and others) is bleak and, therefore, continuation of the trial against the petitioner would be a futile exercise.
7. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed and the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.32 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Rakshpal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.258 of 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Rao/-
