Umesh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Instant criminal revision, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (now 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023, has been preferred against the order dated 11/02/2006, passed in an application under Section 227 of the CrPC. By the impugned order, the court below has dismissed the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC / 250 BNSS filed by the revisionist

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is at present posted Vice Principal, DIET at District Siddharthnagar. In the year 2012, he was posted as District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow. On complain, the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment initiated an open inquiry against him and final report was submitted on 26.12.2016. On direction of the Special Director, dated 28/02/2017, a supplementary inquiry report was submitted on 25/02/2017 to the Government, wherein the finding was given that the revisionist had acquired income of Rs.

¶14

CRLR No. 231 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

99,10,488 from known sources between 1997 and 2012, whereas, during this period, his total expenditure was found to be Rs 1,56,72,764. Thus, it was found that he spent Rs 57,62,276 more than his income from all known and valid sources. After an inquiry report, an FIR was lodged against him by the SHO, Inspector Vigilance, on 14/04/2017, under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The police investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against him under said sections.

¶17

He next submitted that the revisionist filed discharge application before the trial court, in which several issues were raised, but the same had not been properly addressed in the impugned order and the learned court below has dismissed the discharge application with the observation that at the stage of framing charges, no roving inquiry into material collected during the investigation is called for.

¶18

The learned court below also observed that material exits on record put the revisionist on trial for said charges. He next submitted that decree of divorce was passed between the revisionist and his first wife in the year 2004 and he solemnized second marriage in the year 2007. His wife is posted as Principal in Hanuman Prasad Rastogi Inter College, Lucknow. She was selected through the Commission. In fact, no proper mode of calculation of income has been conducted by the Investigation Officer and the assets of both wives (divorcee, as well as the present wife) have been included and while calculating the total expenditure of the revisionist, he has injected and chargesheeted in wrong manner.

¶19

He next submitted that in discharge application dated 23-07-2025, inter alia, a legal issue was raised that as the revisionist was doing pairavi on

¶20

3

¶21

CRLR No. 231 of 2026

¶22

behalf of the department in matters between the Management and Department of Secondary Education in this Hon'ble Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The certain management of private institutions exerted political pressure at the Government level to initiate various legal proceedings against the revisionist. He approached this Hon'ble Court for protection and this Court passed an order on 20-122013 in Writ Petition No.1785 of (SB) 2013, Umesh Kumar Tripati versus State of U.P. and another, wherein, the Court directed the Government to stop harassing the revisionist under the influence of Education Mafia. Consequently, the State Government on 21-8-2012 directed U.P. Vigilance Establishment to conduct an open inquiry against the applicant.

¶23

He next submitted that in order to pressurize Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Establishment as well as the State Government, some people having vested interest in government and also from outside having personal grudges, filed a proxy writ petition in the garb of PIL for further direction to conduct criminal investigation against the revisionist alleging that his assets are disproportionate to his known source of income. The Inquiry Officer hurriedly completed the inquiry without considering the applicants' explanation and representation dated 26/27-12-2016 and the supplementary inquiry report dated 25.02.2017, completed the open inquiry 19.04.2017 and submitted a report against him before the Government with legal findings against the revisionist. The case has been instituted without applying statutory provisions contained in proviso of Section 17 of the PC Act which provides that the offence falling under Section 13(1)(e) shall not be investigated without the order of the Superintendent of Police. In this case, a letter sent by the State

¶24

CRLR No. 231 of 2026

¶25

4

¶26

Government to Director, Vigilance clearly shows that the State Government has ordered the Director, Vigilance not only to register the FIR but also to investigate the same in view of the 2nd proviso of Section 17 of the P.C. Act. The State Government is not empowered to order the investigation of the case.

¶27

In the present case, the investigation has not been conducted on orders of the Superintendent of Police. Thus, it is unauthorized and without jurisdiction. This plea was taken in Writ Petition No.1638 (CrlP) of 2025 filed by the applicant before this Hon'ble Court while challenging the the Sanction Order dated 12/12/2024. The aforementioned writ petition was filed on 20/02/2025 and till then, the charge sheet of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was not filed before the Court. Even the charge sheet is defective as the pages of the case diary are not numbered properly in seriatim and in fact, there are in different serial numbers which is not permissible and is in contravention of police regulations. The entire investigation has been conducted in a mechanical way without proper application of mind. The father of the applicant was a government teacher and retired lecturer, had also been extending financial help to the applicant from time to time. In charge sheet, the disproportionate assets are calculated as Rs. 22,76,579, which is the result of wrong calculation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No 5009 of 2024 [arising from SLP (Crl) No.10101//2024, Nirankar Nath Pandey versus State of UP and others , wherein it is held that applicants' wife's income must be considered as a whole while calculating the total income and assets. Both the applicant and his wife had filed relevant income tax

¶29

CRLR No. 231 of 2026

¶30

5

¶31

returns in order to show their respective income and assets.

¶32

He also placed reliance on Susanta Ghosh versus State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC Online Cal 792 and Meenakshi Khare and another versus the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No.33484 of 2025 and State of Andhra Pradesh versus J. Satyanarayana, (2017) 6 Supreme Court cases, 628 in support of his contention.

¶33

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that it is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge roving inquiry in evidence collected during investigation is not desirable. In present case, a prima facie case is made out against applicant for framing of the charge against revisionist for the alleged offense. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impuned order.

¶34