The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 419, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, and the scope of departmental remedies does not preclude criminal liability.
Writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of FIR dates 27.09.2019 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11158 of 2020
Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Singh,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA for the State.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 27.09.2019 registering Case Crime No. 0134 of 2019, under Section 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba on the ground that the alleged charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner can not be examined in view of specific provisions contained under UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as well as Mahatma Gandhi Rojgar Yojna under which petitioner can be proceeded departmentally but no criminal proceedings can be initiated against him. It is submitted that by initiating criminal proceedings, petitioner is being targeted and is being coerced.
Learned AGA for the State in his turn submits that alongwith the petitioner who was working as Secretary in Gram Sabha -Pupwara there are other persons have been found to be criminally liable for their acts of cheating, manipulation. breach of trust so also corrupt practice. It is submitted that scope of departmental civil remedy and that of criminal law are separate and once a cognizable offence is disclosed from a plain reading of the contents of the FIR then no indulgence can be shown by this court in its writ jurisdiction.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State, its eminent plain reading of the FIR reveals commission of cognizable office. None of the ground mentioned in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259 are made out to quash the FIR. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.11.2020 S.K.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR alleging cheating, manipulation, and breach of trust under Sections 419, 420, 504, and 506 IPC can be quashed under Article 226.
Whether the scope of departmental civil remedies under the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 precludes criminal proceedings against a petitioner.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting criminal prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lakhan Singh
State Of U.P.
Two Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
