Dismissed¶14

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2024/3995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Prevention of Corruption Act Ss.13(1)(B), 13(2); disproportionate assets — enrichment 374.02% without source of income; sanction for prosecution obtained before charge sheet; quashing of charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order refused; open inquiry by Vigilance Department (Irrigation); Crime No. 10/2022, PS Lucknow Sector Vigilance, U.P. Vigilance Establishment; discharge application liberty (15 days / decide within 3 months); Application u/s 482 dismissed; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 15; Single Judge: Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Order dated 1.5.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:33910.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to file discharge application within 15 days, to be decided by the court below expeditiously preferably within three months of filing. ¶14

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed; liberty to file discharge application within 15 days, to be decided by the court below expeditiously preferably within three months of filing.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 02-02-2024 in Crime No. 10/2022 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 02-03-2024 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge/Special P.C. Act 6, Lucknow, are liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

On due consideration of the submissions, the record and the impugned order by which cognizance was taken and the petitioner summoned, no illegality was found in the order impugned.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet prima facie shows that sanction for prosecution was obtained before filing of the charge sheet, negating the applicant's plea that sanction was lacking.

¶12

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a discharge application; if filed within 15 days, the learned court below to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application u/s 482 by Dharmendra Kumar seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 02-02-2024 (Crime No. 10/2022, Ss.13(1)B, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, PS Lucknow Sector Vigilance, District U.P. Vigilance Establishment) alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 02-03-2024 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge/Special P.C. Act 6, Lucknow — DISMISSED. Holding: the charge sheet prima facie showed that sanction for prosecution had been obtained before filing, and no illegality was found in the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order. Liberty granted to file a discharge application within 15 days, to be decided by the court below expeditiously, preferably within three months. Background per AGA: FIR lodged by Vigilance Department (Irrigation) after open inquiry; investigation assessed complainant/prosecution witness statements and Account Officers' reports, finding enrichment of 374.02% without source of income.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33910

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3995 of 2024 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Nigam,Piyush Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Head learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶8

"it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 02-02-2024 filed against the applicant in Crime No. 10/2022, under section 13(1)B, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Lucknow Sector Vigilance, DistrictU.P. Vigilance Establishment alongwith cognizance order dated 02- 032024 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge/Special P.C. Act 6, Lucknow."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired in the year 2020 and just to harass the petitioner, an FIR has been lodged making vague allegations. Charge sheet has been filed in a cursory manner without conducting proper investigation and sanction for prosecution has not been obtained while filing charge sheet.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the petition submitting that FIR has been lodged by the Vigilance Department of Irrigation on the basis of open inquiry. The FIR discloses prima facie commission of offence. While filing charge sheet, statement of the complainant, statement of the prosecution witnesses and after the report of the Account Officers of Office of Accountant General have been assessed and when it was found that the petitioner has enriched himself by 374.02 percent without

¶11

having source of income, charge sheet has been filed. There is no illegality in the charge sheet or the impugned cognizance and summoning order. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Perused the record. Charge sheet prima facie shows that sanction for prosecution has been obtained before filing charge sheet.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perused of the record, so also the impugned order by which the cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned, I find no illegality in the order impugned.

¶14

The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be granted liberty to file a discharge application.

¶16

Accordingly, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a discharge application, which if filed, within a period of 15 days from today shall be decided by the learned court below expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 R.C.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Navin Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Amit Awasthi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sumit vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Ram Shankar @ Ram Shankar Girdhari vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others