A single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to prohibit arrest and quash an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that a cognizable offence was disclosed prima facie.
Prayer for quashing of FIR and directive not to arrest the petitioner denied.
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. - 3630 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajesh Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Pandey,Raj Kishor Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Prakash Gupta,Sunil Kumar
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta, for the private respondent and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 2.2.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0049/2020, under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Karvi Kotwali Nagar, Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer Grade II, attached to the C.D.O, Chitrakoot, was being harassed by respondents by passing illegal orders against him which forced him to approach this Court by way of Writ A No.19457/2019, wherein interim orders were passed in his favour, but the interim orders were not complied by the respondents, petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.6732/2019 which came to be disposed of on 14.11.2019, in retaliation thereto, the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent no.6 at the behest of respondent no.2, 3 & 5, on false and mischievious allegations of demanding illegal gratification as also without conducting any departmental inquiry, no offence is made out, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged after conducting detailed enquiries by A.D.M. (Pariyojna Nideshalaya) / DRDA / DGA (Civil) and ultimately the D.M. has directed to lodge the above FIR, FIR cannot be quashed.
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.
From the perusal of the FIR, 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.
The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.3.2020 Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a cognizable offence against the petitioner based on the allegations in the FIR.
Whether the writ of mandamus directing the authorities not to arrest the petitioner should be granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Mishra
State Of U.P.
6 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
