Allowed

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024A482/2023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Affidavits confirmed the applicant, an MBBS intern, was not a government servant, rendering the proceedings illegal and in excess of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire consequent criminal proceedings insofar as they relate to the applicant are quashed.

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh vs State of Up and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108324

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2023 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshayavar Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sarad Malviya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. A.N. Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

2. Perused the record.

¶8

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the charge sheet dated 22.07.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 578 of 2022, under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad, the Cognizance Taking Order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Special Judge, Special Court No.-2 (P.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, on the aforesaid charge sheet, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of Consequential Criminal Case NO. 1437 of 2023 (State Vs. Sandeep), under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictGhaziabad now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Special Court No.-2 (P.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed primarily on the ground that since the applicant Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh is not a government servant, therefore, the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be maintained against him. On this issue, the Court passed orders directing the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad as well as the Investigating Officer to file their requisite affidavit as to whether, the applicant is a government servant or not.

¶10

In compliance of order passed by this Court, the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad has filed an affidavit of compliance dated 28.03.2024. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it has been clearly mentioned that applicant is not a government servant. For ready

¶11

reference, paragraph 4 of the affidavit of compliance filed by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad is extracted herein under:-

¶12

"4. That it is germane to mention here that the applicant Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh does not come within the ambit of "public servant", as he was and MBBS intern student doing internship in MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad since 13.06.2022 to 12.06.2023 on different schedule under Compulsory Rotating Internship."

¶13

The Investigating Officer namely Patil Nimish Dashrath has also filed his affidavit of compliance and in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, it has been clearly stated that applicant is not a government servant. For ready reference, paragraph 7 of the aforesaid affidavit is extracted herein under:-

¶14

"7. That it is most respectfully submitted that during the course of investigation the fact with regard to that Dr. Sandeep Singh is not a public servant as he was an MBBS intern student doing internship in MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad since 13.06.2022 to 12.06.203 on different schedule under Compulsory Rotating Internship and does not come within the ambit of public servant, this fact does not surface during the course of investigation and due to inadvertent human error, charge sheet has been submitted under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

¶15

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since it is an undisputed fact before this Court that applicant is not a government servant, therefore, the impugned charge sheet submitted against him and the consequential proceedings undertaken by Court below against applicant are not only illegal but in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶17

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and considering the fact that it is admitted to the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad and also the Investigating Officer that applicant is not a government servant, therefore, by reason of above, the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn against applicant. In view of above, not only the charge sheet but the cognizance taking order passed by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under

¶18

Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. are wholly illegal inasmuch as, they are in excess of jurisdiction against the applicant.

¶19

In view of above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶20

It is, accordingly, allowed .

¶21

The impugned charge sheet dated 22.07.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 578 of 2022, under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad, insofar as it relates to the present applicant, the Cognizance Taking Order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Special Judge, Special Court No.-2 (P.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, insofar as it relates to the present applicant as well as the entire proceedings of Consequential Criminal Case No. 1437 of 2023 (State Vs. Sandeep), under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Special Court No.-2 (P.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut insofar as they relate to the present applicant shall stand quashed.

¶22

Cost made easy.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vinay

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh 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

Vikas Tomer vs State of Up and Another

Bintu and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharad Saurabh Giri vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Gangwar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch Ghaziabad

Shyam Sunder Mishra @ Heera and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Priti vs State of Up Others