Shiva Shukla And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:72298
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25991 of 2021   
 
   Shiva Shukla And 3 Others    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ved Prakash Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 79
 
   
 
 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard, Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved by the applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 01.06.2020 filed in S.O.N. No. 700 of 2021 (State Vs. Shiva Shukla and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 572 of 2019, under Section 409 and 120B IPC, P.S. Khutar District Shahjahanpur as well as cognizance order dated 08.03.2021 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused/applicants have been falsely implicated in the case by Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), who has lodged the FIR on 09.12.2019 against the accused/applicants and others. The accused/applicants are Gram Vikas Adhikari against whom there is charge of embezzlement of Govt. Fund when they have been provided Grant for laying Khadanja (village road) in the village. After the said laying, it was found that the amount has not been utilized in full but there was embezzlement of Government Fund. It is the contention of learned counsel that the prosecution sanction has not been obtained to initiate criminal case. The administrative inquiry initiated by the department ended in exoneration of accused/applicants, hence prayed that the present application under Section 482 CrPC be allowed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned AGA for the State submits that charge against the accused/applicant is of embezzlement of Government Fund. Further submits that no prosecution sanction is required in this case as they were not discharging their duties but charged for embezzlement of Government Fund, hence submitted that the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

6. The FIR is lodged by the opposite party no.2/Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) on the basis of report of three members Enquiry Committee against 16 named persons on the ground that the accused/applicants including other co-accused have been provided Government Funds for multifarious schemes for the Financial Year 2015-16 and 2016-17. The payments have been made to the relatives and friends without following financial norms. There was also infirmities found in the cashbook maintained for the utilization of Fund. There is ample material on record, which is sufficient for proceeding of trial.

7. So far as, the Administrative Inquiry is concerned, wherein the accused/applicants stated to have been exonerated, has no bearance on the criminal case, which is to be considered on this own footing. The material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed with the trial. It is trite law that the criminal trial and departmental enquiry are separate in their sphere. The Criminal Law deals with the punishment, the Administrative Law deals with penalty. It would be apposite to deal with the document annexed at page 124 of this application, where by the applicants have sent letter to S.H.O., P.S. Pawaya, Shahjahanpur, showing their dropping of administrative enquiry. The letter dated Nil is reiterated underneath:-

"?????

????? ??????????????, ???????, ???????????

????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? 16 ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? 572/19 ????-409/120 ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ???

????????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????-1947 (??? ???????-1994) ??? ????? ????????????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??-1439 ?????? 23. 11.2020 ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????, ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???

?????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???????-1947 (??? ???????-1994) ?? ????-27 ?? ???????? ???? ?????????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????

???? ?????????? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????????? ?????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????????? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??-3021 ?????? 23.12.2020 ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???

????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????-1947 (??? ??????? 1994) ??? ????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???

??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? 572/19 ????-409/120 ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? / ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ????? ??

?????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????

(??? ???????) (????)(????? ???????????)(????? ????)(????? ???????????)(?????? ?????)

????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????????" (emphasis supplied)

The above emphasized part of letter evinces recovery of embezzled amount.

8. So far as, the prosecution sanction is concerned, the act alleged by the accused/applicants is not in respect to the duties assigned. Thus the prosecution sanction is not required as there is no nexus of the act with the discharge of official duty because the charge is of embezzlement of Government Fund. In the case of Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2021) 8 SCC 768, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that Section 197 CrPC provide protection of officers from unnecessary harassment, while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.

9. The scope of ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 482 CrPC or 528 BNSS are very wide, but should be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and appropriate cases. This power do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to whims and caprice and is used to prevent the abuse of process of law and for procuring the ends of justice. This preposition of law is enunciated in the cases of Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451 and the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 574, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given an expression of 'rarest of rare case', while describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC. This view is consistently maintained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court till the present day, which is settled by 'en' number of judgments, latest are Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 18 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983.

10. Considering the offence allegedly committed and the attendant fact and circumstances discussed herein above, the application does not have merit. Thus, the application is hereby dismissed.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

April 3, 2026

Abhishek Sri.