Disposed

Surachna Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024A482/3332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the court heard submissions regarding an alleged counter-blast FIR lodged against the applicant amidst a dispute between rival college management committees. Considering the informant's statement and pending defense, the court granted time for affidavits and kept the proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Time granted for State to file counter affidavit; Impugned proceedings kept in abeyance regarding the applicant.

Surachna Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3332 of 2024 Applicant :- Surachna Trivedi

¶2

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Chaudhary,Utkarsh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2018, the applicant was given additional charge of Principal of the college by the Committee of Management of the College which was headed by Radha Raman Pandey (father of the informant). The petitioner after receiving some complaints from the employees against the informant, has reported the matter to the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri against the informant on 27.09.2021 which is on record as Annexure no. 5 to the petition. Aggrieved by that, as a counter blast, the present FIR has been lodged on the basis of the report of Special Three Member Team appointed by the State Government.

¶7

The FIR is nothing but the counter blast to the complaint made by the applicant. The informant is nobody and is not holding any post in the College. It is a dispute between two rival committee of managements of the college. The petitioner has been made a scapegoat.

¶8

It has been further submitted that in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2744 of 2024, a statement was given before the Court on behalf of the informant that the petitioner has no role in embezzlement of the funds. The relevant part of the order is

¶9

extracted below:-

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party No.4, on the other hand, has pointed out that there is major difference between the role allegedly played by Dr. Surachna Trivedi and the petitioner. Dr. Surachna Trivedi was only the officiating principal with limited financial power, and prima facie, she had no role in the embezzlement of funds of the college, whereas the petitioner while acting as manager was having wider power regarding financial matters i.e. its withdrawal and expenditure, he has embezzled a huge amount of money for which a regular inquiry was conducted by the education authorities.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute is primarily civil in nature and the FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the complaint made by the petitioner against the informant and as per the own statement of the informant before the Court, the petitioner has no role in committing financial irregularity as alleged in the FIR.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that prima facie offence has been committed by the petitioner and no indulgence is required to be given, however, he does not deny the statement given by him in the writ petition referred above. He has further stated that he has no knowledge about the complaint made by the petitioner against the informant to the District Magistrate concerned.

¶14

Perused the record.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the record, so also considering the statement of the informant made in writ petition No. 2744 of 2024 and the fact that there is a dispute between the two rival committee of managements and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , prima facie matter requires consideration.

¶16

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2

¶17

prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶18

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

List on 16.05.2024.

¶20

Till further orders of the Court, the impugned proceedings of Case No. 2195 of 2024 "State Vs. Surachna Trivedi", arising out of case crime/FIR No. 223/2023, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri are kept in abeyance so far as they relate to the present petitioner.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 R.C.

¶22

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

Surachna Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surachna Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Devesh Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others