Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the Section 482 application was dismissed as lacking merit. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and decide it after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, without prejudice to the applicant's other rights under law including seeking discharge.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet no. 2A dated 07.05.2010, filed after re-investigation in Crime No. 290/2000 (FIR No. 272/2000), P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

The pleas raised by the applicant (that he was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial charge sheet, and was implicated only after re-investigation for having submitted a report pursuant to which payment was made) being factual in nature, and the charge sheet stating that investigation establishes commission of cognizable offence by the applicant, the charge sheet could not be quashed in the Section 482 jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

While deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact or hold a mini-trial to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations; that adjudication is for the trial court after the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence (as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online 379).

Key takeaways

The dismissal of the Section 482 application will not affect any other rights available to the applicant under law, including the applicant's right to seek discharge.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Quashing (S. 482 Cr.P.C.) - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge sheet no. 2A dated 07.05.2010, filed after re-investigation in Crime No. 290/2000 (FIR No. 272/2000 dated 13.05.2000), P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Applicant contended he was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial charge sheet and was implicated only after re-investigation for submitting a report pursuant to which payment was recommended and made by higher authorities - Held, relying on Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online 379, that while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact or hold a mini-trial; correctness of allegations is to be adjudicated by the trial court after evidence - Pleas raised being factual in nature, and cognizance having been taken on 26.05.2011, application dismissed - Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously - Dismissal without prejudice to applicant's other rights, including seeking discharge (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.).

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1826

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5327 of 2013 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Parul Kant, the learned A.G.A for the State.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash a charge sheet no. 2A dated 07.05.2010 filed in furtherance of an F.I.R No.272/2000 dated 13.05.2000 in Crime No. 290/2000 submitted regarding commission of offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

A copy of the F.I.R has not been annexed with the application. The charge sheet states that after investigation, the applicant has been found to be guilty of commission of the aforesaid offences.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the after initial investigation, the applicant was not found guilty but after re-investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against him.

The trial court has taken cognizance of the offence by means of an order dated 26.05.2011 and summoned the applicant to face the trial.

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the the applicant was neither named in the F.I.R, nor was she named in the initial charge sheet. His name has been

involved only after re-investigation of the matter.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been implicated for the reason that he had submitted a report, in furtherance of which payment was recommended and made by higher authorities.

The charge sheet filed after investigation states that the investigation establishes commission of cognizanble offence by the applicant. The pleas raised by the learned counsel of the applicant are factual in nature.

While deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this court cannot go into the factual dispute as held held in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh Etc., 2023 SCC Online 379, the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising a power under Section 482 Cr.P.C this court cannot go into the disputed question of fact and hold a mini trial to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations and that is to be done by the trial court after the the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed . The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and decide the same after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to adduced offence.

The dismissal of this application will not affect any other rights available to the applicant under law, including the applicant seeking his discharge.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

Order Date :- 8.1.2024/Preeti.

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench