Allahabad High Court
Dwijendra Kumar Mahle (D.K. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3473 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dwijendra Kumar Mahle (D.K. Mahle) And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. who has appeared on behalf of the State-respondents.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following main prayer:-
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the FIR bearing FIR No.01/2023 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Lucknow Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District-Lucknow/U.P Vigilance Establishment Lucknow, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in FIR No. 01/2023 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Lucknow Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District-Lucknow/U.P Vigilance Establishment Lucknow in the interest of justice.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all three petitioners have come before this Court saying that they were working as General Manager, Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager in the U.P. Financial Corporation at the relevant point of time. A Composite Loan Scheme was introduced by the State Government, the petitioners being Regional Managers in-charge of the region disbursed the loans under the Composite Loan Scheme.
As per prosecution story such loans that were disbursed were without verifying the particulars of the industrialists to whom they were sanctioned and without relevant rules being followed for disbursement of such loans. As a result whereof, several of such loans were not returned which caused huge loss to the public exchequer therefore, an open vigilance inquiry was instituted by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were not party to such vigilance inquiry and they were never issued any notice by the Investigating Officer and therefore, could not place their version before him. The loans were disbursed by the petitioners around 40 years ago before 1985 and none of them were more than Rs.25,000/-. No oral evidence of irregularities, if any, committed by the petitioners in disbursing of such loans could have been collected by the Investigating Officer and without there being sufficient evidence against the petitioners, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.
This Court has perused the F.I.R. and finds that the F.I.R. has been lodged after Open Vigilance Inquiry wherein it was found that in Meerut region 757 industrialists were given loans out of whom 387 did not return such loans in time. After the Open Vigilance Inquiry was held, the report was submitted on 01.03.2017 and further investigation was directed by the Government and supplementary report was submitted on 26.09.2017 and 07.07.2022. The petitioners and some of the General Managers/Deputy Managers/Assistant Managers were found involved in the disbursement of loans without due verification of the credentials of the loanees. After the report was submitted to the Government, the Government has taken a decision to initiate criminal proceedings against all such officials of U.P. Financial Corporation responsible for frittering away of precious public resources by invoking various Sections of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction was also given thereafter by the competent authority which has resulted in the impugned F.I.R. being lodged.
The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [Criminal Appeal No.2310 of 2022] decided on 16.12.2022 and has referred to paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 thereof to say that the court has held that where the F.I.R. is lodged with unexplained delay, the same should be taken as a relevant ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.
This Court has carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court which arose out of an appeal filed against an order passed by the High Court of Madras in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint. The appellant No.1 was a proprietor of a firm. The other appellant was an employee. The allegation was that they had bought certain chemicals for making medicine. The Drug Inspector inspected the appellant's premises on 19.11.2013 and found contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant in 2016 after nearly 3 years. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than one year and four months, the respondent-State filed a complaint against the appellant. The appellant sought quashing of the said complaint before the High Court of Madras. The High Court dismissed the petition on 23.08.2021 on the ground that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case and an order was passed to expedite the trial.
This Court finds from a perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the criminal complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with delay. There was no allegation of corruption by public servants, no invoking of the prevention of Corruption Act. The matter was not referred to the Vigilance Establishment and evidence was not collected as has been collected in the instant case.
In the case of the petitioners, the evidence was collected in an Open Vigilance Inquiry. The petitioners being public servants were responsible for loss of precious public money. The corporation is an instrumentality of the State. It deals with public money for public benefits having regard to interest of industry, commerce and general public. The financial corporations under the State Financial Corpus Act, 1951 were visualized not as profit earning sources but as an extended arm of a welfare state to harness business potential of the country to benefit the common man.
The counsel for the petitioners state that loans of only Rs.25,000/- were disbursed to the industrialists long time ago or at last before 1985. The value of Rs.25,000/- in 1985 was much more that what it is today due to devaluation of the rupee.
Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to show interference. The petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Saurabh Yadav/-
