Allahabad High Court

Suryakant Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102505
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19237 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Suryakant Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 18.06.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 22.08.2024, of Case No. 5327 of 2024 (State Vs. Shyam Bahadur Yadav and another), arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380, 34, 409, 411 IPC, P.S.- Sant Nagar, District- Mirzapur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Mirzapur.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. The applicant is working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Composite Vidyalaya Amoi Purwa. The food-grains of said school was kept in the house of one Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal for safety purpose and it was recovered from there and the allegations of theft of food-grains are false. In view of these facts and circumstances, no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that in departmental inquiry, applicant has already been exonerated and thus the applicant can not be prosecuted for criminal offence regarding same matter. In that regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr. 2020 LawSuit (SC) 568. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that applicant is working as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school and that applicant himself has lodged first information report alleging that food-grains, including 21 bags of wheat, 23 bags of rice and some other articles, have been stolen from the school. There is statement of Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal that said food-grains was kept at his premises by the applicant and co-accused persons. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against applicant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that applicant is working as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school and that on 03.01.2024 he has lodged first information report alleging that on the night of 01.01.2024, aforementioned food-grains has been stolen from the school. During investigation, the said food-grains was recovered from the house of Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, who has stated that the said food-grains was kept there by applicant and co-accused persons. Thus, the contention that the said food-grains was kept at the house of Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal for safety purpose, is not acceptable, particularly when the applicant himself has lodged the first information report regarding theft of food-grains and articles. The conduct of applicant speaks itself. In view of these facts and circumstances, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant.

8. So far this contention is concerned that applicant has been exonerated in departmental proceedings, in that regard learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

7. A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1, the question before the Court was posed as follows:-

?3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.?

This Court then went on to state:

?17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it.?

This being the case, the Court then held:

?23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.?

In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 581, this Court held as follows:-

?26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27)

" I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined.? xxx xxx xxx

29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Malhotra that the finding in an adjudication proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree whereas in a criminal case the entire burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution.

xxx xxx xxx

31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case.? After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:-

?38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.? It finally concluded:

?39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.?

From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.

9. It is apparent from the said case law that in appropriate cases adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously and decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution. It was further observed that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in adjudication proceedings as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of person concerned in adjudication proceedings is on merits. In the instant matter, it appears from the report of Basic Shiksha Adhikari that suspension of applicant was revoked on the ground that charge could not be proved against applicant. There is nothing to show that whether any full-fledged inquiry was conducted or that the concerned relevant persons were examined. Mere revocation of suspension of applicant would not amount to exoneration in adjudication proceedings. In the instant matter there are clear allegations that applicant was involved in theft of food-grains belonging to school. In view of attending facts and circumstances, the aforesaid case law does not provide any help to the applicant. Considering entire facts of the matter, this court is of considered view that no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.