The Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the refusal of discharge in a corruption case, holding that prima facie involvement of the revisionist could not be ruled out based on payment trails and documentary evidence.
No relief granted; criminal revision dismissed and interim order vacated.
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.
Reserved Judgment Reserved On : 20.11.2025 Delivered On :12.12.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1284 of 2025
Beena Parihar
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti Corruption, Lucknow
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Purnendu Chakravarty, Pranjal Jain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Kumar Singh,
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and grounds stated in this criminal revision, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Learned Trial Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI West, Lucknow in Sessions Case No 2463/2023, Crime No. RC 218 2022A0009 dated 03.06.2022, under sections: 120-B IPC read with Section 7,7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) and section 420 and 471 IPC, Police Station C.B.I/AC-III, New Delhi, (CBI vs. Alok
2
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
Mishra & Others), District: with all consequential facts in the interest of justice."
(i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecution/C.B.I. at Police Station-CBI/AC-III, New Delhi on 03.06.2022, registered as RC 218 2022A0009, under Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section(s) 7, 7A and 8 of the P.C. Act.
(ii) In aforesaid case, the first charge-sheet i.e. Charge Sheet No.6 dated 30.07.2022 was filed against Manjit Kumar Singh (present husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar), Alok Mishra and Avanish Kumar Mishra.
(iii) The prosecution/CBI filed another charge sheet i.e. Charge Sheet No.21 dated 27.08.2024 against the present revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar (now married to co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh) wife of late Ajit Kumar Singh, who was the proprietor of the Firm namely M/s Chauhan Constructions and died on 30.01.2021, and also against Shailendra Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar Srivastava.
(iv) The Charge Sheet No.21 dated 27.08.2024 was filed against revisionist - Smt. Beena Parihar, Shailendra Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar Srivastava under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (in short "P.C. Act") and Section 420, 471 I.P.C.
(v) Vide order dated 08.10.2025, under challenge, passed in Session Case No.2463/2023 (C.B.I. Vs. Beena Parihar) arising out of RC 218 2022A0009, under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the P.C. Act, Police Station-CBI/AC-III, New Delhi, the Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI, West, Lucknow (in short "Trial Court") has rejected the application of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar seeking discharge filed in terms of 262 of BNSS, 2023, akin to Section 227 Cr.P.C.(now repealed).
(i) Ajit Kumar Singh who died on 30.01.2021, was the first Husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar and after the death of Ajit Kumar Singh the revisionist-Smt. Beena Singh solemnized marriage with co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh in the month of January, 2022.
3
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
(ii) Ajit Kumar Singh was the proprietor of M/s Chauhan Constructions, Tulip F Flat No.705 Omaxe Residency 1, Arjunganj, Lucknow (in short "Firm").
(iii) A contract in relation to 'Provision of Centralized Air Conditioning Unit for the Air Conditioning of Administrative Block of Store Depot and Alambagh Workshop, Lucknow' was awarded by the Railways to the proprietorship Firm.
(iv) The agreement between the Railways and Firm was signed on 24.07.2020. The same is evident from the document annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.11.2025 filed today.
(v) Prior to completion of work under the aforesaid contract Ajit Kumar Singh died in a road accident on 30.01.2021 leaving behind revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar and minor daughters.
(vi) After the death of Ajit Kumar Singh (first husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar), the revisionist- Smt. Beena Parihar took over the proprietorship Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) and got it registered in her name with GST on 09.04.2021 with GST No.09BOZPP0020H1ZP.
(vii) Earlier Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions), was registered with GST on 21.02.2018 with GST NO. 09BMNPS5564F1ZF.
(viii) After the death of original proprietor Ajit Kumar Singh, who died on 30.04.2021, the Firm continued to serve the Railways for the purposes of completion of work.
(ix) The work carried out by the Firm ought to have been completed on 22.09.2020 and the same could not be completed and therefore, the time to complete the work was extended up to 31.03.2021 and the work was completed on 25.03.2021.
(x) Thus, the work done by the Firm named above was measured after the death of Ajit Kumar Singh, original proprietor of Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) by the Officier(s)/Official(s) of the Railways.
(xi) At the time of measurement of work, under the agreement, carried out by the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) the revisionist was the proprietor as to the revisionist the GST No.09BOZPP0020H1ZP was allotted on 09.04.2021.
4
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
(xii) After the completion of measurement, the amount to the tune of Rs.37,11,709/- was credited to the bank account of the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) on 14.01.2022 i.e. Account No.38450463102 and out of this amount, Rs.30,00,000/- were transferred to the account No.38459480424 of M/s Blue Diamond Avas Pvt. Ltd., a Firm jointly owned by the revisionist-Smt.Beena Parihar and co-accused - Manjit Kumar Singh.
(xiii) On 27.12.2021, name of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar was entered into the document(s) of Railways related to work in issue allotted to Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) of which initially Ajit Kumar Singh (first husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar) was the proprietor and in connection to which the agreement was signed by the parties on 24.07.2020. This undisputed fact is evident from the copy of Addendum annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 to counter affidavit filed by C.B.I.
(xiv) Prior to entering the name of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar in the record(s)/document(s) related to the work in issue the revisionist- Smt. Beena Parihar appeared in the process of measurement. This fact is apparent from the copy MB 122503 at page 1509, annexed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I., and at this page she wrote and signed the following on 22.06.2021 :-
"Measurement accepted and nothing is outstanding after this final payment."
(i) After the death of Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, who died on 30.01.2021, original proprietor of the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions), the Work as per agreement dated 20.07.2020 was carried out by the co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh.
(ii) On 27.12.2021 the name of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar was entered into the records of Railways in connection with the work allotted to the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions).
(iii) On 22.06.2021, the name of revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar was not there in the records of Railways in connection with the work allotted to the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions).
5
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
(iv) The payment was received on 14.01.2022, after completion of measurement by Officer(s)/Official(s) of Railways.
(v) In the aforesaid background of the case, it is apparent that the revisionist was having no role for the offence indicated against her in the Charge Sheet No. 21 dated 27.08.2024.
(vi) The revisionist is not connected with the offence indicated in the Charge Sheet No. 21 dated 27.08.2024 or in the First Information Report (FIR) dated 03.06.2022. It is for the reason that the work carried out by the Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) was completed on 25.03.2021, and the measurement was also completed on 22.06.2021 by the Officer(s)/ Official(s) of Railways and the name of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar was entered into the records of Railways on 27.12.2021 and thereafter the payment was made on 14.01.2022.
(vii) It appears that the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar has been implicated being the wife of co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh, who has been implicated based upon the conversation(s) on mobile phone of Alok Mishra, Avanish Mishra, Manjit Kumar Singh and Jyoti.
(viii) On the aforesaid aspect of the case, this court took note of paragraphs 16.2.23 to 16.2.68 of the Charge-Sheet No.6 dated 30.07.2022 which was filed against Officer(s) of Railways namely Alok Mishra and Avanish Mishra and also against Manjit Kumar Singh (present husband of revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar), and also took note of paragraphs 16.2.16 to 16.02.36 and paragraphs 16.3.1 to 16.3.4 of the Charge Sheet No. 21 dated 27.08.2024 filed against revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar, Shailendra Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar Srivastava.
(ix) Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred on the following portion of the statement of Ramautar, a witness of prosecution, recorded during investigation :-
"First running/ final contract certificate no. 149/2020-21 dtd. 22.06.2021 was submitted by Sh. Shailendra Singh, SSE/AC. Shop, NR, C&W, Alambagh, Lucknow. He has certified that the firm has completed entire work as per quantity, specifications and terms and conditions of agreement with full satisfaction of railway. He has further certified that all the machines are tested and found working satisfactorily cooling at each site are to the mark. The same was further verified by Sh. Manoj Kumar Shrivastav, AWEE and I identify his signature below the said certification of Sh. Shailendra Singh (on back side of page 541). On further perusal, I
6
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
state that the said bill was prepared by Sh. Shailendra Singh. I Identify and confirm the signature of Sh. Shailendra Singh on the bill. I also identify the signature of Sh. T.P. Singh, Chief OS, at witness to contract. I identify signature of Smt. Beena Parihar on the signature of contract. I also identify my signature as final approving authority on the bill. The bill was claimed for Rs. 39,58,029/- and after deduction, the net payable amount comes out to Rs. 37,11,709/- and the same has to be paid from railway allocation head no. 06056032. The same was sent to Dy. FA & CAO, Alambagh for payment. Further, the addendum as mentioned above was also issued for change in the name of proprietor of M/s. Chauhan Construction from Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh to Smt. Beena Parihar. The addendum was vetted by Dy. FA & CAO.
On being asked about processing of bill, I state that the bills were not processed and returned by Dy. FA & CAO to our section due to lack of documentation. Accordingly, the contractor was conveyed to complete the requisite documentation for clearance of bills. Thereafter, the contractor i.e. Smt. Beena Parihar submitted the required documents and the bill was finally processed for payment.
On being shown the letter no. ELECT/W/AMV/149/202021. dtd. 13.09.2021, 1 state that Sh. Manoj Kumar Shrivastav, AWEE issued this letter as first and final bill of M/s. Chauhan Construction for net payment of Rs. 37,11,709/-. I further state that Sh. Manoj Kumar Shrivastav, AWEE had mentioned in the letter that above work has been completed by the firm M/s. Chauhan Construction.
On being asked, I state that after death of Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, Shri Manjit Kumar Singh used to visit Carriage Workshop Alambagh NR Lucknow and my office for the purpose of completion of remaining work and clearance of bills of the said work. I further state that Smt. Beena Parihar visited office of Dy.CEE only for the purpose of signature for 2-3 times. I further state that Shri Manjit Kumar Singh handled the remaining work under Tender no. ELECT/W/AMV/149/2020-21 in Carriage Workshop, Alambagh, NR, Lucknow and got the bill cleared by visiting O/o Dy. CEE and submitting required documents."
7
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
8
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
applied is as to whether the material on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible.
(i) The revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar has been implicated with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C.
(ii) Involvement of revisionist Smt. Beena Parihar, prima facie, appears from the fact that she received Rs.37,11,709/- from the Railways on 14.01.2022 related to the work allotted to M/s Chauhan Constructions (a Proprietorship Firm of first husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar namely Ajit Kumar Singh who died on 14.01.2022), after she became proprietor of the Firm on 09.04.2021 as on this date new GST No.09BOZPP0020H1ZP was allotted to the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar and she immediately transferred an amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- to the Bank Account bearing No.38459480424/-related to the Firm jointly owned by the revisionist - Smt. Beena Parihar and co-accused namely Manjit Kumar Singh (present husband of revisionist/Beena Parihar) i.e. M/s Blue Diamond Awas OPC Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) A perusal of conversation(s) on mobile phone of co-accused referred in the Charge Sheet No.6 dated 30.07.2022 (paragraphs 16.2.23 to 16.2.68) and Charge Sheet No.21 dated 27.08.2024 (paragraphs 16.2.16 to 16.2.36 and 16.3.1 to 16.3.4), prima facie, indicate that illegal demand was made in connection with the payment made to Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions) as the coaccused namely Manjit Kumar Singh (present husband of revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar) made conversation with coaccused Alok Mishra (an employee of Railways) and Alok Mishra made conversation with co-accused Avanish Kumar Mishra (an employee of Railways) as per which he helped in the payment of amount to Firm (M/s Chauhan Constructions), a Proprietorship Firm of which revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar became the proprietor on 09.04.2021 as on this date fresh GST number was allotted i.e. GSTIN 09BMNPS5564F1ZF to the Firm.
9
CRLR No. - 1284 of 2025
(iv) According to the case of revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar herself, co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh (present husband of the revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar) was involved in completion of work allotted to M/s Chauhan Constructions and accordingly it can be inferred/presumed that on the instructions and at the behest of revisionist-Smt. Beena Parihar, the co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh carried out the work else he could not as he was not the legal heir and therefore he could not enter into the shoes of the deceased namely Ajit Kumar Singh, original proprietor of the Firm.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
December 12, 2025 ML/-
Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the material on record prima facie discloses commission of an offence by the revisionist warranting denial of discharge?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh SinghReferred¶69
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 · Who else cites this
Union of India Vs. Prafull Kumar Samal and anotherReferred¶69
Union of India Vs. Prafull Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 · Who else cites this
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh ChanderReferred¶69
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and AnotherReferred¶69
Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053 · Who else cites this
Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherReferred¶69
Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh RaoReferred¶69
State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 · Who else cites this
Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.Referred¶69
Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Beena Parihar
Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti Corruption, Lucknow
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
