Disposed

Vijayanand and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019CRLP/5196/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging complicity in unauthorized invigilation during an examination. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that the investigation continue. The court granted protection from arrest, contingent on the petitioners cooperating with the investigation and providing necessary documents for signature verification.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Investigation to continue without arresting petitioners provided they cooperate in furnishing documents and specimens for verification.

Vijayanand and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5196 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijayanand And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 12.02.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 39 of 2018, under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C.and section 7/10 U.P. Public Examination Act, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.

¶7

The allegations in the impugned first information report are that upon inspection by a raiding party, during the course of examination, certain invigilators were found at the Centre concerned, whose authority to invigilate was found doubtful. The first information report was lodged naming three persons but the name of the petitioners was conspicuous by its absence.

¶8

The petitioners had approached this Court, upon receipt of a notice from the Investigating Officer requiring certain information from them, under the apprehension that they might be arrested by the Investigating Agency.

¶9

On the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on 26.02.2019, the Court had passed the following order:-

¶10

"The allegation in the impugned first information is that upon inspection it was found that three Invigilators were operating in an Examination Centre, who were not authorized.

¶11

The first information report was lodged against those Invigilators.

¶12

It appears that as per practice, the Invigilators are nominated by Principal of different Schools. Thereafter they are empanelled and sent on duty to different examination centres.

¶13

From the notice that has been served upon the petitioners, who are Principal and Additional Principal of Public School, it appears that they had nominated Invigilators and details were sought from them to ascertain whether they had nominated the Invigilators, who were apprehended. The notice discloses that if those details are not provided, it shall be presumed that the petitioners are in conspiracy with the offenders.

¶14

By taking this notice as a ground to believe that the petitioners are wanted in Case Crime No.39 of 2018, this petition has been filed.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to require the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions from the Investigating Officer of the case concerned as to (a) whether the petitioners had nominated Invigilators for examination centre or not;(b) whether the nomination of the Invigilators is being denied by the petitioners or not; (c) if the nomination made by the petitioners is not being denied by the petitioners, then what is the material that has been collected during the course of investigation as against the petitioners disclosing their complicity in the crime.

¶16

The Investigating Officer shall also disclose whether the notice dated 12.02.2019, at page 20 of the paper book, is calling for the specimen signature of the petitioners or of those persons who have allegedly been nominated by the petitioners for the purpose of comparison by a forensic team.

¶17

The aforesaid instructions be obtained by 06th March, 2019.

¶18

List this matter on 06th March, 2019.

¶19

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned A.G.A. for compliance."

¶20

Thereafter, as necessary instructions could not be obtained by the learned A.G.A., as directed by order dated 26.02.2019, on 06.03.2019, an interim protection was provided to the petitioners by order dated 06.03.2019, which is extracted below:-

¶21

" On 26.02.2019, the following order was passed :

¶22

" The allegation in the impugned first information is that upon inspection it was found that three Invigilators were operating in an Examination Centre, who were not authorized.

¶23

The first information report was lodged against those Invigilators.

¶24

It appears that as per practice, the Invigilators are nominated by Principal of different Schools. Thereafter they are empanelled and sent on duty to different examination centres.

¶25

¶26

By taking this notice as a ground to believe that the petitioners are wanted in Case Crime No.39 of 2018, this petition has been filed.

¶27

¶28

¶29

The aforesaid instructions be obtained by 06th March, 2019.

¶30

List this matter on 06th March, 2019.

¶31

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned A.G.A. for compliance."

¶32

Learned A.G.A. states that he has not been able to obtain instructions and prays for further time.

¶33

List this matter again on 27.03.2019, by which date, learned A.G.A. shall obtain instructions in the light of the order dated 26.02.2019.

¶34

However, till the next date, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with Case Crime No.39 of 2018, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat provided the petitioners provide necessary information that may be sought from them in connection with the investigation in the said case."

¶35

Pursuant to order dated 06.03.2019, a short counter-affidavit was filed by the Investigating Officer in which it was stated that although the petitioners have provided their specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed documents but the petitioners have not provided the documents maintained in the institution so as to disclose the regular signature of the petitioners for a meaningful comparison of the signatures.

¶36

Accordingly, on 27.03.2019, we had passed the following order:-

¶37

"A short counter affidavit has been filed today by the Investigating Officer. In paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that although the petitioners have provided their specimen signature for comparison with the disputed documents but the petitioners have not provided the documents containing their regular signatures used in ordinary course of business so as to ensure meaningful comparison of signatures. It is stated that by not providing such documents, the petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Investigating Officer is free to examine the records maintained in the institution of the petitioners and to take specimen signatures for comparison and in case a specific request is made for supply of any document, the petitioners are ready to provide, if it is in their custody.

¶39

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to provide that the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to inspect/examine the records of the institution and to take record in their custody for comparison of the signatures, etc. The Investigating Officer would also be at liberty to require the production of any specific document, if the same is in the custody of the petitioners. In case any such request is made by the Investigating Officer, then the petitioners shall cooperate and provide the necessary information as well as documents.

¶40

Put up this matter on 17th April, 2019. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer will be free to conduct the above exercise.

¶41

Subject to cooperation of the petitioners, as indicated above, they shall not be arrested in Case Crime No.39 of 2018, under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 7/10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, till the next date of listing."

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have provided all the necessary documents that were required by the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶43

In view of the above, considering that the matter is under investigation and the papers have been provided for the purpose of comparison of the signatures, etc. we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate in the investigation.

¶44

It is made clear that if any further document is required by the Investigating Officer and the same is in possession of the petitioners, then the petitioners would make the same available as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Any failure in that regard would be deemed noncooperation in the investigation.

¶45

The petition stands disposed off.

¶46

Order Date :- 17.4.2019 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Vijayanand and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayanand and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Uzaif Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dilsher @ Shahrukh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khushi Alias Khushnam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gulnaz @ Neha and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vivek and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Supriya Devi @ Priya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others