Dismissed

Rajesh Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2021A482/2809/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash FIR alleging offences against an educational trust. Court found applicant failed to prove non-involvement with the school and dismissed the application for failure to demonstrate the FIR was based on misrepresentation or erroneous report.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashing of Case Crime No. 72 of 2019 is dismissed.

Rajesh Pandey Vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2809 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

This Application has been filed by Sri Rajesh Pandey son of Ramakar Pandey seeking quashing of Case Crime No.72 of 2019, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Mau, District-Mau on the ground that firstly, applicant has nothing to do with the said 'Mahatma Buddh Samaj Kalyan Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar, Bheeti'. Secondly, he submits that he has no land in his name and places reliance on some illegible communication between him and the Tehsildar, Mau in which Tehshildar, Mau has given a report that there is no land or property in the name of Rajesh Pandey. Thereafter, applicant's counsel submits that there is recognition available to the school, as is evident from Annexure-5, which is an order passed by District Basic Education Officer, Mau, vide which, Mahatma Buddh Samaj Kalyan Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar, New Basti, Bheeti Nagar was granted recognition for running primary school.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this recognition was permanent and there is no need for its renewal, whereas, in clause-1 itself it is mentioned as under:-

¶8

" वविदद्यालय सवमिवति पपंजजिककति हहो तिथद्या समिय समिय पर नविवीनवीकरण करद् य ाद्या जिद्याए। "

¶9

Thus on the face of it, submission of learned counsel for the applicant that, school was granted permanent recognition and it was not required to get it renewed is belied on the face of the record from the document dated 17.05.1997, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the 'Smrati Patra ' and Rules of the Society, enclosed as Annexure-6, through which, he has tried to demonstrate that his name is not mentioned as one of the post bearers or the Members of the Managing Committee. However, learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to explain the date on which, this 'Smrati Patra' was drawn and authorized, in which name of the applicant is not mentioned. It is also not the case of the applicant that this Managing Committee was formed in perpetuity and there was no requirement of conducting periodical elections.

¶11

At this stage, Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he shall file copy of periodic renewal, but fact of the matter is that, applicant if would have approached this Court with clean hands, would have shown the date of the election of the Managing Committee and also the validity of the period of the Managing Committee as was formed vide Annexure-6. Therefore, applicant's effort to demonstrate that he is not a Member of the Managing Committee and has nothing to do with the school is, in fact, contrary to the enquiry report furnished by 'Three Member Committee' addressed to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Mau, Annexure-7, in which, there is a specific mention of the fact that Rajesh Pandey is holding two posts of Headmaster and Principal of Primary school as well as Inter College. There are other allegations in regard to not following the terms and conditions by the

¶12

Management Committee and also of committing irregularity in disbursal of scholarship etc. Thus, this document available on record clearly demonstrates that Rajesh Pandey is trying to take false alibi of not being associated with Mahatma Buddh Samaj Kalyan Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar, Bheeti. Report has been lodged by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari on finding violation of various norms and legal provisions including violation of the provisions contained in Right to Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and, prima facie, this report is based on the enquiry report, conducted by a team of three members.

¶13

Applicant has not been able to demonstrate through any documents available on record that the report is contrary to any documentary evidence or perverse or arbitrary and, therefore, I do no find any reason to quash the FIR, merely on misrepresentation or asking of the applicant. Therefore, Application fails and is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.9.2021 Ashutosh

Rajesh Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Pandey v. State of Up and Another

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

Asha Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Devanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagya Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhakar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another