Dismissed

Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/9705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for corruption and unlawful dacoity. The court held that a prior discharge in disciplinary proceedings does not affect the criminal trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; interim order if any vacated; trial court directed to proceed with trial within one year.

Radhe Shyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9705 of 2020 Applicant :- Radhe Shyam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Naz Zaidi,Brijesh Sahai(Senior Adv.),Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel representing the petitioner, as well as Mr. Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent - State, and gone through the entire file.

¶5

By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Court No. 1, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No.18 of 2017, under Sections 386, 120-B, 392 and 411 IPC read with Sections 7/13 and 8/10 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act'), Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli and for quashing of the proceeding of Special Trial No.18 of 2017, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Court No. 1, Varanasi.

¶6

An FIR at Case Crime No.138 of 2017 came to be registered under Sections 386 and 120-B IPC read with Section 7/13 PC Act at Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli on a compliant of Circle Officer, Chandauli.

¶7

As per the said FIR, the Circle Officer was going with his driver and gunner on routine patrolling; as soon as he reached near Katsila petrol-pump, he saw that a truck bearing registration no.UP62-AT/7011 was standing on highway; in front of the said truck, one government vehicle bearing registration no.UP65ET/8052 having hooter was standing; two persons were standing near the said government vehicle having some altercation with the truck driver of UP62-AT/7011; the Circle Officer suspected something wrong and, therefore, he asked his driver to stop his car; he came down from his car and enquired from the truck-driver that what was the matter; the truck driver, Teju Yadav, son of Vijay Bahadur said that the two persons, standing near the government vehicle, were threatening him that if he would not give them money, they would kill him; when those two persons, who were standing near the government vehicle having altercation with the

¶8

truck driver, were enquired, one of the two persons, was wearing dress, having police batch of U.P. Parivahan, however, there was no name-plate, told the Circle Officer that he was driver of ARTO, R.S. Yadav and his name was Shiv Bahadur Yadav, son of Late Ramraj Yadav and other person was Dhanji Yadav, son of Shankerji Yadav and on instructions of R.S. Yadav, he and Dhanji Yadav recovered illegal money from truck drivers. When both these persons were searched, from their possession Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 16,850/- were recovered along with one samsung mobile, one mobile of samsung J7 and one LG mobile.

¶9

The accused-petitioner, who was ARTO, had given his vehicle and asked his driver and private person to collect illegally money from truck-drivers passing through his area.

¶10

The investigating office, after investigating the offence, had filed charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner and co-accused.

¶11

The learned trial Court has rejected the discharge application, considering that there is more than prima facie case against the accused-petitioner.

¶12

On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the accusedpetitioner was discharged in disciplinary inquiry.

¶13

Discharge in disciplinary proceeding does not have any bearing upon proceeding in criminal trial against the accused-petitioner. It is well settled that at the time of considering the discharge application/framing of the charge, the Court is required to consider that whether material and evidence collected suggest prima facie case against the accused. If the accused-petitioner had given his government vehicle and authorized his driver and private persons to make illegal recovery from the truck-drivers, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the ongoing proceeding. Thus, this petition, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated . Trial Court concerned is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶14

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶15

[D. K. SINGH, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 16.2.2023MVS/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Shailendra Jain Vs Central Bureau Investigation CBI Ghaziabad

Ravindra Singh Vs C.B.I. Ghaziabad

Pradeep Shukla Vs Central Bureau of Investigation New Delhi

Dr. Krishna Murari Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Fasahat Ali Khan Alias Shanu

Kalu Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others