Allahabad High Court
Moolchandra Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 8 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:24646
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1275 of 2026
Moolchandra Chaurasia
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Alok Kumar Singh, Mohammad Taha Chishti, Siddhartha Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Present application has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"1. Quash qua the Petitioner, the entire proceedings of the impugned case le. Criminal Case No. 374/2021, titled as 'S.I.T. versus Vivek Singh and Ors. (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC, arising out of FIR No. 399/2019, P.S.-Hazratganj. Lucknow (later converted to FIR No. 12/2019, P.S.-S.I.T., UP, Lucknow), and, currently pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI-C), Lucknow;
2. Quash qua the Petitioner, the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure No. 2 to the Petition) passed by the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI-Central), Lucknow vide Criminal Case No. 374. of 2021, titled as "S.I.T. versus Vivek Singh and Ors.', under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC, arising out of FIR No. 399/2019, P.S.-Hazratganj (S.I.T.), Lucknow;"
Submission put forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was posted as Station House Officer from 2.12.2017 to 30.7.2018 at Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, and he was transferred therefrom on 30.7.2018. He submitted that for the incident, which is said to have taken place on 17.7.2019, an FIR bearing FIR No.12 of 2019 was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 7/13 (1) P.C. Act, which is also registered as Sessions Trial No.374 of 2020. He argued that, in fact, on the date of the occurrence, the applicant was not posted at the police station concerned as the date of occurrence is of 17.7.2019, whereas the applicant was transferred therefrom on 30.7.2018 itself. Further the accused was challaned under section 107/116 CrPC, and the proceeding went on thereafter, thus, considering the remoteness of the effect and the outcome of that proceeding, the present applicant has also been implicated in the present FIR.
He submitted that a departmental proceeding was also instituted against the applicant, wherein the applicant was found guilty by the disciplinary authority, and the Appellate Authority had also upheld the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, though the same was challenged before the State Public Services Tribunal, in Reference Petition number 429 of 2020, wherein the final judgment and order was passed on 28.6.2021 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the punishment order dated 28.12.2019, as well as the appellate order dated 14.2.2020, passed against the applicant. He specifically added that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.6.2021, has not been challenged by the State Government as yet.
Further contention is that one of the co-accused, namely Sudhesh Chandra, against whom, vide the same case crime number, the offence under section 420 IPC was charged, approached this Court, by way of instituting an Application U/S 482 No.119 of 2024, and after hearing the parties, this Court has passed the order on 3.9.2025, while quashing the criminal proceedings instituted against him. He submitted that the case of the present applicant is also covered with the ratio of the aforesaid judgment.
Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the law is settled that if the same set of allegations is in the departmental proceeding and the said employee is exonerated, the criminal prosecution will not go on. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that after a thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed, and the trial court has rightly proceeded in the matter. He next submitted that, after contemplation of the inquiry proceeding, the disciplinary authority has punished the applicant, and further, the appellate authority has also upheld the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, and to that extent, the matter goes against the applicant, therefore, submission is that no interference is warranted.
Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the applicant was posted at the Police Station concerned as the Station House Officer from 2.12.2017 to 30.7.2018 and the incident is said to have taken place on 17.7. 2019. It is apparent that the some proceeding was instituted by the applicant, while challenging under Section 107/116 CrPC, and it is stated that, the aforesaid proceedings resulted into occurrence and, therefore, the applicant is liable for the same.
This Court finds that, simultaneously, departmental proceeding was also instituted for the same set of allegations, wherein, though the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order and that was upheld by the appellate authority, but once it was challenged before the Tribunal, both the orders were quashed and as per the statement given by the learned counsel for the applicant, the same has never been challenged by the State. The fact remains that, criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.12 of 2019 was instituted against the applicant, including another co-accused person, namely Suresh Chandra, who was then posted as Tehsildar and the criminal proceeding against the co-accused Suresh Chandra has been quashed by this Court.
This Court finds that for an action taken by the present applicant, being the Station house officer, which subsequently, after a period of 10 months, resulted in some criminal liability, cannot be attributed to the applicant, as there can be no stretch of imagination that an administrative action taken by a police officer would resulted into a criminal occurrence, after a lapse of more than 10 months. In view of the above, this Court finds that mens rea is missing for committing an offence under Section 406 IPC herein.
Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the application, thus, the criminal proceedings against applicant in Criminal Case No. 374. of 2021 arising out of FIR No. 399/2019, under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC, P.S.-Hazratganj (S.I.T.), Lucknow, is hereby quashed.
Consequences to follow.
Consigned to the records.
Shree Prakash Singh,J.) April 8, 2026 Ram Murti