Dismissed

Kamal Singh(Gram Rojgar Sewak) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020CRLP/25612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR and restrain arrest, the Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. Relying on precedent, the Court found no ground to interfere with the investigation or stay arrest and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a clarification that observations are made for limited purpose only.

Kamal Singh(Gram Rojgar Sewak) Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25612 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamal Singh(Gram Rojgar Sewak) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel or the petitioner and Dr. S. B. Maurya, the learned A.G.A.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R dated 04.06.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 & 409 I.P.C., P.S. Sakrar, District Jhansi with a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Rozgar Sewak on temporary basis as a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month and his work was to supervise labour in different projects. He argued that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Jhansi, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by the Divisional Development Officer against the petitioner and other persons. He lastly has submitted that the petitioner has neither committed the alleged crime nor is involved in any criminal activities and has an unblemished career since his appointment.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. in reply argued that the petitioner named in the F.I.R. has been assigned very serious role of being involved in the said case. He further argued that the matter relates to embezzlement of funds which were to be paid to the workers in MANERGA.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsels and have perused the records. From perusal of the record it transpires that the present F.I.R has been lodged on the directions of the Chief Development Officer, Jhansi vide his letter dated 31.05.2019. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Further the said recommendation of the Chief Development Officer, Jhansi for registration of the present F.I.R

¶11

is based on the detailed inquiry conducted in which a report (Annexure -2) dated 25.04.2019 was forwarded to him by the Inquiry Officer. During enquiry role of the petitioner surfaced in a prominent manner. The petitioner has been found to be actively involved along with others due to which payments in the scheme has not reached the labourers. The present F.I.R discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The question of affording opportunity of hearing in the inquiry cannot be looked into by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶12

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶13

From the perusal of the F.I.R, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

We clarify that above observations are made for a limited purpose at this stage only.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2020 AS Rathor

Kamal Singh(Gram Rojgar Sewak) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh(Gram Rojgar Sewak) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Chauhan Vs State

Naseer Khan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Bhoorey Alias Ashraf Vs State of U.P.

Bhoop Singh Vs State

Suman Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others