Petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging misappropriation of funds, citing a statutory inquiry provision. The Court held that the inquiry and criminal proceedings are distinct and declined the prayer as prima facie allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180749-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12929 of 2023 Petitioner :- Navneet Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Alok Kumar,Shachi Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.398 of 2023, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station - Muradnagar, District -Ghaziabad, primarily on the ground that inquiry under the provision of Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has since been initiated, therefore, till its conclusion, no F.I.R. can be registered against the petitioner for alleged offence of misappropriation of funds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of Uttar Pradesh U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry, Rules, 1997, in order to submit that inquiry is required to be conducted, by the District Level Officer, to be authorized by District Magistrate and only thereafter any step can be taken in the matter.
Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the informant states that provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Rules 1997, in respect of proceeding for removal of Pradhan, operate in entirely distinct field, vis-a-vis allegations of misappropriate of funds. Submission is that provisions of Act 1947 and Rules 1997 cannot be pressed into service so as to challenge the F.I.R.
We find substance in the objection, raised by the respondents' counsel, inasmuch as lodgement of the F.I.R. is not, in any manner, connected with holding of proceedings for removal of the Pradhan, which are regulated by separate statutory provisions.
The prayer made to quash the F.I.R., in such circumstances, is declined, particularly as prima facie allegations of commissioning of cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R.
Writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023 MN/-
Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 bars the registration of an FIR for misappropriation of funds.
Navneet Kumar
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
