Allowed

Navalesh Kumar Alias Nawalesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./68/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding for excess payment against a Public Works Department Executive Engineer who was exonerated in departmental enquiry; Government sought withdrawal of prosecution, yet cognizance was taken. Relying on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari, the court quashed the entire proceeding including cognizance order and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015 (G.R. Case No. 3823 of 2015) including cognizance order dated 21.01.2021 quashed.

Navalesh Kumar Alias Nawalesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 68 of 2018

¶4

Navlesh Kumar @ Nawalesh Kumar

¶5

…….Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

…… Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

---------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Ms. Surbhi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

¶11

14/Dated: 24/01/2024

¶12

Heard Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3823 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih or its successor Court.

¶14

During pendency of the present petition, learned court has been pleased to take cognizance and by way of I.A. No. 11637 of 2023 order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2021 has been challenged.

¶15

Mrs. Surbhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the present petition learned court has been pleased to take cognizance that is why it was necessitated to file the present I.A.

¶16

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State accepts this submission.

¶17

Considering that the matter is still pending before this Court and during pendency of this petition cognizance has been taken to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, the prayer made in I.A. is allowed.

¶18

I.A. No. 11637 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶19

Let I.A. No. 11637 of 2023 be treated as part of main petition

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the

¶21

relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. She

¶22

¶23

submits that the allegation is made against the petitioner of excess payment for that the petitioner was suspended and departmental enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner has been exonerated and his suspension was revoked and on this background, the Government of Jharkhand requested the A.P.P. of DistrictGiridih by letter dated 14.06.2018 to withdraw the prosecution. She submits that inspite of that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. She submits that this has also been confirmed in the reply pursuant to Right to Information Act applied by the petitioner.

¶24

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that exoneration is there however chargesheet has been submitted.

¶25

It is an admitted position that the case was registered against the petitioner while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. The allegations are made of excess payment for that the petitioner was chargesheeted and the departmental enquiry was conducted and in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was exonerated pursuant to that order dated 23.03.2017 was passed by the Government of Jharkhand whereby the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges. The document on record obtained by the petitioner through R.T.I. also suggests that the petitioner has been exonerated. Further by letter dated 14.06.2018 the Government of Jharkhand has requested the A.P.P of the concerned district to withdraw the prosecution inspite of that learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. It appears that the learned A.P.P. has not taken care of that letter that is why the matter is still pending before the learned court.

¶26

It is further well settled that if the case is arising out of the same charge in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding and if exoneration is there in the departmental proceeding the criminal proceeding can be quashed. Reference may be made to the case of “Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI.” (2020) 9 SCC 636 .

¶27

¶28

In view of above, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2021 passed in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3823 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih or its successor Court, are quashed.

¶29

This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Satyarthi/

Navalesh Kumar Alias Nawalesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navalesh Kumar Alias Nawalesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Nath Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shri Phani Bhushan Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Singh Meena Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devendra Hazam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajendra Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Parminder Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand