Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 4 October, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68598 AFR Reserved On 05.08.2024 Delivered On 04.10.2024 Reserved Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5413 of 2024 Applicant :- Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Gautam Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. AND Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2283 of 2023 Applicant :- Jagdish Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Akhand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Subject matter of both the application(s) filed by the applicant namely Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh relates to Case Crime/FIR No. 0271 of 2020, under Section 323, 504, 506, 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 IPC, P.S.- Kakori, District-Lucknow and as such the same are being decided by means of this common order/judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 5413 of 2024 has been filed seeking following main relief:
"to set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 passed by Learned Court Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 21, Lucknow in the Session Case No. 1907 of 2023 bearing title "State of U.P. Vs Anoop Kumar Gupta & Others" arising out of charge sheet bearing No 01 dated 14.07.2020 submitted in F.I.R. No. 0271/2020, Under Section 323/504/506/307/332/353/188/270 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow whereby the discharge application of the applicant/accused has been rejected (contained as Annexure No. 1 to theaccompanying affidavit to this application)and be further pleased to discharge the applicant/accused in the aforementioned case pending before the aforesaid court and also quash/set aside the entire proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order against the applicant/accused."
4. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2283 of 2023 has been filed seeking following main relief:
"to quash the impugned charge sheet bearing No 01 dated 14.07.2020 submitted in F.I.R. No. 0271/2020, Under Section 323/504/506/307/332/353/188/270 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow along with the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 15.11.2021 (contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the accompanying affidavit to this application) passed by the Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 30, District Lucknow and the entire proceedings arising out of it against the applicant/accused."
5. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for adjudication of the matter, in brief are as under:
As per FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020, on 13.05.2020, at about 20:50 hours the opposite party No.2/Sub Inspector Daya Shankar Singh (informant) was on routine checking in view of the lock-down imposed due to COVID-19 Pandemic and he was informed by the constable namely Man Singh that four persons were standing at a public place near "Joggers Park", Sitapur Bypass and on being asked the reasons of their presence they started hurling abuses and thereafter the informant reached on spot and tried to settle the issue but the efforts of the informant went in vain and all the four persons assaulted the three police men and two persons were apprehended and two managed to escape and upon inquiry the persons apprehended disclosed their particulars. In nutshell, four persons violated the lockdown guidelines and abused and assaulted the police personnel on 13.05.2020 at about 20:50 hours.
6. Considering the allegations levlled in the FIR, the same was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 IPC against jagdish Singh S/o Ravindra Singh (applicant), Hardwari Prasad S/o Ishwardeen, Anil Kumar Gupta and one unknown person.
7. It would be apt to indicate that the applicant was released on bail in compliance of the order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 1747 of 2020.
8. After completion of investigation, which includes reducing the statements of the witlessness of prosecution in writing, the charge-sheet no. 01 dated 14.07.2020 was filed against the applicant/Jagdish Singh S/o Ravindra Singh, Haridwari Singh S/o Iswardeen. under under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 IPC. Subsequently, the charge-sheet no. 02 dated 01.11.2020 was filed against Anoop Kumar Gupta S/o Krishna pal under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 IPC. Thereafter the charge-sheet no. 03 dated 16.02.2021 was filed. By this charge-sheet the investigation was closed against Ajay Kumar whose name was surfaced during the investigation. Upon submission of charge-sheet(s) the cognizance was taken on 15.11.2021.
9. From the charge-sheet(s), indicated above, it is apparent that the prosecution to establish/prove its case before the trial court proposed to examine the following witnesses:
Name Type of evidence S.I. Daya Shankar Singh Informant S.I. Vineet Singh I.O.
Constable Hargovind Singh Police Witness Constable Man Singh Victim Constable Ratan Singh eye-witness Ram Singh alias Ramu Formal witness Manoj Formal witness Constable Mohit Kumar Singh eye-witness Constable Vivek Kumar Singh eye-witness
10. Before taking cognizance, vide order dated 15.11.2020 passed by the Magistrate, Registrar General of this Court, considering the facts pertaining to the FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020, Registrar General of this Court vide his order dated 19.06.2020 suspended the applicant and thereafter, departmental inquiry no. 16/2020 was initiated by issuing a charge-sheet dated 22.06.2020.
11. The charge-sheet dated 22.06.2020 issued for conducting disciplinary proceedings, being relevant, is extracted herein-under:-
"You are hereby charged as follows:
On 13.05.2020 at 22:20, an F.I.R. under sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 332. 353. 188. 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow was registered against you alongwith three other persons on the fact that you alongwith three other persons were present in public place near Joggers Park, Sitapur Byepass Road, Lucknow and when police personnel enquired of you, during admist enforcement of preventive measure for COVID-19, about the reason of your presence at the spot, you and other three persons started hurling abuses, threatening and scuffling with the police personnels and strangulated police constable Sri Man Singh, who was doing his official duties and thus you were arrested and detained in judicial custody in crime number 0271 of 2020, under sections 323, 504,506,307, 332, 353, 188, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow.
Thus, your above conduct is unwarranted and unbecoming of a Government Official, you thus committed 'Misconduct' within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 and punishable under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
The evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge are as follows:
1 Photocopy of FIR Dated 13.05.2020, under sections 323. 504, 506. 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow.
2. Photocopy of Bail order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1745 of 2020 (Jagdish Singh Vs. State of U.P) Case Crime No. 0271 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 332, 353, 188, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow.
3. Photocopy of your application dated 10.06.2020 for permission to resume duties.
4. Photocopy of Suspension Order No. 538 / Establishment / High Court, Allahabad Dated June 19th, 2020.
Oral evidence proposed to be recorded during the course of enquiry is as follows:
1. Sri Daya Shankar Singh, Informant/Sub-Inspector of Police. Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow.
2 Sri Man Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow.
3. Sri Mohit Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakori, Districi Lucknow.
4. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakon, District Lucknow.
Note: Any other necessary evidence may be considered by the undersigned during the course of enquiry after due notice to you.
The copies of documentary evidence in support of the charge are attached herewith You are hereby required to put in written statement of your defence in reply to the charge within 15 days. You are warned that if no such statement is received from you by the undersigned within the time allowed, it will be presumed that you have none to furnish, and if you fail to appear on the prescribed date, the enquiry shall proceed exparte and orders will be passed in your case accordingly.
You are further, required simultaneously to inform the undersigned, in writing whether you desire to be heard in person and in case you wish to examine or cross-examine any witness, to submit alongwith your written statement, their names and addresses together with a brief indication of the evidence which each such witness shall be expected to give.
If you desire or if the undersigned so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At that inquiry, such oral evidence will be recorded as the undersigned considers necessary and then you shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses."
12. From a conjoint reading of the charge-sheet no. 1 dated 14.07.2020 submitted in the criminal case and the charge-sheet issued for conducting disciplinary proceedings i.e. departmental inquiry no. 16 of 2020, it is evident that the charges and the witnesses to prove the charges of both the charge-sheets are the same except formal witnesses to be examined before the trial Court. The name of witnesses of fact are as under:
"1. Sri Daya Shankar Singh, Informant/Sub-Inspector of Police. Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow (Informant).
2 Sri Man Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow (Victim).
3. Sri Mohit Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakori, Districi Lucknow (Eye-witness).
4. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Police Constable, Police Station: Kakon, District Lucknow (Eye-witness)."
13. In the departmental enquiry, Sri Daya Shankar Singh (Informant) (E.W.1), Sub-Inspector of Police. Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow, stated as under:
Examination-in-chief "eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gw¡ fd& orZeku le; esa eSa crkSj mifujh{kd dkdksjh Fkkuk esa rSukr gw¡A ?kVuk dh frfFk fnukad 13-5-2020 dks esjh rSukrh pkSdh izHkkjh nqcXXkk Fkkuk dkdksjh ds #i esa FkhA ?kVuk tkxlZ ikdZ pkSjkgk ds ijUrq lhrkiqj ckbZikl jksM ds fdukjs dh gSA ?kVuk dh 'kq#vkr ds le; EkSa ekSds ij ugha FkkA tc eSa dkLVscy ekuflag dh lwpuk ij ekSds ij igqapk] rks ml le; ih0vkj0oh0 ds nks flikgh loZ Jh eku flag] dkLVscy ,oa Jheku flag Jheku flag] dkLVscy ,oa Jh jru flag dkLVscy dh Jh txnh'k dqekj flag gj}kjh izlkn o nks vU; yksxks ls ckrk dguh gS jgh FkhA Jh txnh'k dqekj flag o muds lkFk ds vU; rhu yksx ih0vkj0oh0 ds flikgh o foHkkx dks xkyh ns jgs FksA eSaus ogkW igqWp dj Jh txnh'k dqekj flag] ftUgksaus vius dks gkbZdksVZ esa rSukr ,0vkj0vks0 crk;k mudks le>k;k vkSj dgk fd vki izfrf"Br in ij rSukr gS bl rjg dk O;ogkj uk djsaA ;s pkjks yksx xkyh nsrs gq, Nunksb;k pkSjkgsa dh rjQ py fn;sA mlh pkSjkgs ij iqfyl pkSdh gSA ge yksx Hkh ihNs&ihNs py fn;s ;s pkjks yksx Nunksb;k pkSjkgs ij #d x;sA ogkW Hkh xkyh nsus yxsA dkLVscy eku flag dks pkjks yksx fxjk fn;s rFkk xyk nckus yxs vkSj dgs fd tku ls ekj nsxsA ogkW ij pkSjkgs ij nks vkSj flikgh dkLVscy Jh foosd dqekj falg ,oa dkLVscy Jh eksfgr flag Fks] tks nkSM+dj ogkW vk x;sA bUgksus chp cpko fd;kA dkLVscy eku flag dh tku cpk;kA txnh'k dqekj flag vkSj gj}kjh izlkn dks idM+ fy;k x;kA rFkk nks yksx ekSds dk Qk;nk mBkdj Hkkx x;s ge yksxksa dks pksVsa vk;h FkhA ge yksxksa us MkDVjh eqvk;uk lh0,l0lh0 dkdksjh esa djk;k FkkA MkDVjh fjiksVZ Criminal Case esa yxk gqvk gSA ;g ?kVuk fnukad 13-05-2020 dh le; 20-50 dh gSA ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ eSus Lo;a fy[kk;h FkhA tc dkLVscy eku flag }kjk eq>s lwpuk nh x;h rks eSa {ks= esa FkkA esjh rSukrh iqfyl pkSdh nqCkXxk esa FkhA iqfyl pkSdh esa dksbZ th0Mh0 vuqjf{kr ugha gSA eq>s ;kn ugh gS fd esjh jokuxh Fkkus ls fdl th0Mh0 uEcj ls gqbZA ftjg tkjhA Cross-Examination "l'kiFk ftjg& ?kVuk dk le; bl ;kn ugh gSA eSa ?kVuk LFky ij eSa fdrus cts igqWpk bl le; ;kn ugha gS F.I.R. ns[kdj crk ldrk gwWA eq>dks lwpuk vkj{kh eku flag us tfj;s Qksu lwpuk fn;k FkkA eku flag dk Qksu uEcj ;kn ugh gSA dk0 eku flag o dk0 jru flag igys ls {ks= esa ekStwn FksA ;g nksuks ih-vkj-oh- ckbd ds flikgh FksA muds ikl ok;jysl lsV ugh FkkA eSa lwpuk ds yXkHkx 5&7 feuV ckn ekSds ij igqWpkA eSus ;g ns[kk fd vki pkjks yksx flikgh ls my> x;s Fks xkyh xykSt dj jgs Fks rFkk onhZ mrjokus dh /kedh ns jgs FksA eSus flikfg;ksa ls >xM+k dk dkj.k iwaNk Fkk RkFkk Qksu ls crk;k FkkA mlus ;g crk;k Fkk fd vki pkjks yksx lM+d ds fdukjs [kM+s Fks tc [kM+s gksus dk dkj.k iwaNk rks pkjks yksx xkyh xykSt djus yxsA vu;kl ykdMkÅu esa [kM+s FksA ckgj fudyuk izfrcfU/kr FkkA geus vki yksxks dks dkQh le>k;k ysfdu vki yksx ugha ekus vkSj xkyh xykSt djrs gq, NUnksb;k pkSjkgk dh rjQ py fn;sA viuh ckbd ls vki yksx pys FksA NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij vki yksx [kM+s Fks tc ge yksx igqaps rc vki yksx fQj xkyh nsus yxsA ogkW ij pkjks yksxksa us dk0 eku flag dks fxjk fn;k x;k xyk nck;k x;kA ogha pkSjkgs ij dk0 eksfgr flag o dk0 foosd dqekj flag tks ogh ij pkSjkgs ij Fks ;g yksx Hkkx dj vk;s] ge pkjksa yksxksa us ceqf'dy mldks cpk;kA ekSds dk Qk;nk mBkdj nks yksx Hkkx x;s FksA geus Jh txnh'k flag o Jh gfj}kjh dks fxjQ~rkj dj fy;k x;k vkSj eqdnek eSus fy[kok;k FkkA nks yksx tks Hkkx x;s Fks mudk uke bUgh yksxksa us crk;k FkkA ,d dk uke vfuy xqIrk gS vkSj nwljs dk ugha ekyweA pkSdh ij fdrus vkneh Fks eq>s ugh ekywe gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ml le; pkSdh ij 10 yksx FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ge yksx ¼iqfyl okys½ gfFk;kj lfgr lcds ikl gfFk;kj ugh FkkA FIR eSus jkr 10-20 ij dk;e djk;h FkhA ?kVuk ds le; o ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 (FIR) ds e/; tks le; yxk og lk/ku rFkk rgjhj fy[kus ds le; ds dkj.k yxkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa 5 yk[k #i;k dh ekax dj jgk Fkk vkSj ;g dg jgk Fkk fd ;fn #i;k ugha fn;s rks ukSdjh pyh tk;sxh vkSj lCth cspus ds ;ksX; ugha jgksxsA ;g dguk xyr gS fd FIR ds le; esfMdy ugh gqvk Fkk rFkk fcuk esfMdy fjiksZV ds /kkjk 307 Hkk0n0la0 esa FIR fy[k nh x;hA eq>s ;g ;kn ugh gS fd esfMdy ml le; gqvk ;k vxys fnu gqvk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk firk th Jh johUnz flag tks [kks;k O;kikjh gS mudks gQ~Rks ds fy, /kedk;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd lfpoky; lsok ls oafpr djus ds fy, esjs f[kykQ ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 djk;h x;hA eq>s ;g ugha irk fd vkidk p;u lfpoky; lsok esa gks x;k gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd /kkjk 307 Hkk0n0la dk vijk/k blfy, yxk;k x;k rkfd gekjh tekur u gks vkSj ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk xfBRk gkbysoy desVh ds fn'kk funsZ'k dk ykHk u fey ldsA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuxZr igpku i= tks eSus vius twrs ls jxM+ dj ;g dgk fd ;g mPp U;k;ky; dh vkSdkr gSA vki yksxksa }kjk dkUlVsfcy ls Vksdk&Vksdh dj dk;Z esa ck/kk igqapk;h x;hA geyk djuk o ekjihV djus ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 332 o /kkjk 353 dk vijk/k yxk;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd FIR ds vuqlkj pkj yksxk lM+d ds fdukjs ckr dj jgs FksA ;g /kkjk 144 Crpc dk mYya?ku ugh Fkk ;g ykdMkmu ds lE;d dkuwu dk mYya?ku gSA eSaus flikgh ls fookn dk dkj.k iwaNk Fkk /kkjk 188 ds lkFk laKs; vijk/k lekfgr gSA /kkjk 188 Hkk0n0la0 ds vijk/k ek= ds fy, FIR ugh gks ldrhA dksjksuk egkekjh ds dkj.k /kkjk 207 Hkk0n0la0 dk vijk/k yxk;k FkkA /kkjk 270 Hkk0n0la0 NwvkNwr o egkekjh QSykus ds fy, yxrk gSA vkids d`R; ls egkekjh QSy ldrk Fkk blfy, /kkjk 270 Hkk0n0la dk vijk/k yxk;k x;kA dkfjr vijk/k ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk yxk;h x;h u fd esfMdy ds vk/kkj ij ;g eq>s laKku esa ugh gS fd bl izdj.k ls -------------- fdlh ywV ;k NsMNkM dk dksbZ izdj.k tkap esa esjs fo#) py jgk gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ywVikV o efgyk ls NsM[kkuh dh ?kVuk ls cpus ds fy, cpko Lo#i ;g eqdnek vkids fo#) ntZ djk;k x;k gSA ;g tkudkjh ugh gS fd bl ?kVuk esa vkidks vigfr dkfjr gqbZ ftlls vka[k esa xEHkhj pksV yxh Fkh ftlls jks'kuh esa dkQh deh vk x;h FkhA rFkk ukd o eqg esa pksV vk;h FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iqfyl Fkkus esa ncko ds dkj.k izkFkfed LokLF; ds MkDVj us ftUgksus esjk fpfdRl; ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk mlus xEHkhj {kfr;ka ugh n'kkZ;h x;h dsoy lkekU; pksVs gh n'kkZ;h x;h FkhA eq>s blds ckjs esa irk gS fpfdRld us vkids ukd ds pksV ds ckjs esa O;Dr dh gS fd ;g fxjus ls vk;h gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa izfr izsf"kr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ rd jkr Hkj vkidks ykdvi esa FkhA ij xkyh xykSt fn;k x;k vkSj ekjk ihVk x;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd Fkkus ij ykWdvi cUnh ds nkSjku bUdkmUVj dh /kedh nh x;h gksA eksckby o igpku i= esa iqfyl oxZ us rksM fn;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eku flag ds ekFks ij dksbZ pksV ugha FkhA eq>s ;g irk ugh gS fd e/kq }kjk NsM[kkuh o ywV rFkk #i;s dh ekax ds fo"k; esa dksbZ rgjhj iqfyl Fkkuk ;k fdlh vU; txg fn;k x;kA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugh gS ;g dguk xyr gS fd xyr ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kk;h x;h FkhA"
14. In the departmental enquiry, Constable Ratan Kumar Chaudhary (Eye-witness) (E.W.3), Police Constable, Dial 112, District - Unnao stated, as under:
Examination-in-chief "eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gwW fd esjh M~;wVh PRV Two Wheeler 3842 ij tuin y[kuÅ Fkkuk {ks= dkdksjh es py jgh FkhA fnukad 13-05-2020 dks esjh M;wVh Second Shift esa vijkgu 2 ls 10 cts rd esa FkhA ?kVuk djhc 8-30 cts ls 9-00 cts chp jkf= dh gSA okLrfod le; ugha ;kn gSA djhc 7-30 cts ls 8-00 cts lk;a ds cph esa vkezikyh ;kstuk ls lwpuk vk;h FkhA lwpuk Attend dj okil ykSV jgk FkkA Joggers Park pkSjkgk ij Bike [kMh dj fn;sA ogkW djhc 5&7 feuV] eSa vkSj dkaLVscy eku flag #ds jgsA ogh ij dqN jkgxhjks us crk;k fd lhrkiqj ckbZikl lM+d ds fdukjs pkj u;h mez ds yksx vkus tkus okys yksxks dks ijs'kku dj jgs gS] xkyh&xykSt dj jgs gSA ge lhrkiqj ckbZikl dh rjQ c<+sA NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ls igys gh lhrkiqj ckbZikl jksM ds fdukjs pkjks yksx dks idM+ fy;k x;kA ftjg& vkezikyh ;kstuk esa fdlds ;gkw lwpuk Attend djus x;k Fkk bldh tkudkjh ugh gSA djhc 8-30 cts 'kke dks tkxlZ ikdZ pkSjkgs ij igqpk FkkA jkgxhjksa dk uke irk ugh gS ftuls lwpuk feyh Fkh fd rhu&pkj yksx [kM+s gSA eq>s [kM+s gksus dk dkj.k iwNus dk vf/kdkj gS ;k ugh ;g eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSA ge yksxks ds ikl gfFk;kj ugh gksrs gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd 6-30 cts o txnh'k flag vkSj mldh iRuh ds lkFk ekjihV o ywVikV dhA tc mUgksus Fkkus esa f'kdk;r dh ckr dgh rks QthZ dsl esa Qalk fn;k x;kA fdlh jkgxhj us txnh'k flag vkSj muds lkfFk;ksa }kjk xkyh xykSt nsus ds ckjs esa dksbZ F.I.R. ugh dhA jkgxhjksa dk uke Hkh ugha uksV fd;k vkSj uk gh mudk xokg fy;k x;kA dkaLVscy eku flag dk esfMdy 14-05-2020 dks gqvk FkkA eSa Hkh lkFk x;k FkkA txnh'k flag dk Medical gqvk Fkk ;k ugh ;g tkudkjh ugha gSA ekjihV nksuks i{kksa esa gqbZ FkhA pwafd eSa lwpuk ns[k jgk Fkk blfy, ugha ns[k ik;k fd fdlus fdldksa ekjkA n;k 'kadj flag ds ikl gfFk;kj Fkk ;k ugha Fkk] ;g eq>s Kkr ugha gSA fdlus fdldks iVdk] ;g eq>s Kkr ugha gSA eku flag dk xyk fdlus nck;k Fkk ;g eq>s Kkr ugha gS D;ksafd eSa lwpuk ns[k jgk FkkA gedks fdlh us ugha ekjk FkkA chp&cpko djus esa vxj fdlh dk gkFk yx x;k gks rks bl ckjs esa dqN ugha dg ldrkA eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd pkSdh bUpktZ n;k'kadj flag ds ikl dksbZ gfFk;kj] ekSds ij Fkk ;k ughA eSa Fkkus ij lkFk esa ugha x;k FkkA F.I.R. n;k'kadj flag us djk;h FkhA eku flag us F.I.R. D;kas ugha djk;h bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA ekjihV NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij gqbZA uk ywV gqbZ gS vkSj uk gh dksbZ cnrehth gqbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ge yksxks us gkbZdksVZ ds izfr vi'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k vkSj uk gh ;g dgk fd ;gkW ij gekjh pyrh gSA bruh /kkjk;s yxkÅxka fd rhu lky rd tekur ugha gksxhA gokykr esa ekjihV esa dkSu&dkSu 'kkfey Fkk ;g tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS vkSj uk gh ;g ekywe gS fd ogkW ij dksbZ ekjihV gqbZA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fo|qr foHkkx esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh gj}kjh izlkn gedks cpk jgs Fks blfy, mudks Hkh eqfYte cuk fn;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd pkSdh ij dkQh yksx cpko djus vk;s Fks ysfdu vki iqfyl ds yksxks us /kedh nh fd tks Hkh cpko esa vk;sxk mlds f[kykQ dsl ntZ fd;k tk;sxkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa >wBk c;ku ns jgk gwA txnh'k flag dk I-Card ge yksxks us ugha rksM+k FkkA eq>s tkudkjh ugh gS fd txnh'k flag dk I-Card rksM+dj Fkkus ij j[ks jgs vkSj dbZ fnu ckn okil fd;sA"
15. In the departmental enquiry, Sri Mohit Singh (Eye-witness) (E.W.4), Constable, Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow stated as under:
Examination-in-chief "eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gwW fd eSa yxHkx nks o"kZ lkr eghus ls dkdksjh Fkkus esa crkSj dkLVscy rSukr gwA fnukad 13-05-2020 dks gekjh M~;wVh NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij vijkgu 4-00 cts jkf= 12-00 cts rd FkhA esjs lkFk flikgh foosd flag Hkh rSukr FksA fnukad 13-05-2020 dks pkSjkgs ds cxy esa iqfyl cwFk ds ck;s rjQ dqN vkokt vk;hA vkokt lqudj eS vkSj esjs lkFk rSukr flikgh ogkW igqWpsA ogkW eSus ns[kk fd njksxk th o ,d flikgh dkaLVscy jru flag] chp cpko dj jgs Fks tehu ij eku flag fxj x;s FksA dqN yksx mudks ekj jgs FksA fdlh dk gkFk muds xys ij FkkA pkj yksx ekj&ihV dj jgs FksA ,d O;fDRk txnh'k flag Fks rFkk ckfd dk uke ;kn ugha gSA fQj dgk fd ,d dksbZ xqIrk Fks] csxfj;k ds jgus okys FksA ,d uke irk ugh ekywe rFkk ,d vKkr FksA pkjks yksx ekj jgs FksA pkjks yksx eku flag dks ekj jgs FksA Cross Examination ?kVuk fdl ckr dks ysdj 'kq# gqbZ] ;g eq>s Kkr ugha gSA eSa eqfYteku dks igys ls igpkurk ughaa FkkA EkSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ls igys txnh'k falg dks ekjs fd ugha ekjsA G.D. ls gekjh jokuxh Fkkuk {ks= esa 3-50 vijkgu ij gqbZ FkhA fQj dgk fd 15-50 ij gqbZ FkhA G.D. ftlls jokuxh gqbZ Fkh mls eSus ns[kk FkkA G.D. esa entry fdl flikgh us fd;k FkkA ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA jokuxh ds le; Day Officer Fkkus dk dkSu Fkk] ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA vxj eku flag vkSj jru flag igys eqfYteku dks ekjs Fks rks ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA eqfYteku dks ysdj Fkkus ij eSa x;k Fkk vkSj vkWfQl es lqiqnZ fd;k FkkA rFkk bldh entry G.D. esa gqbZ FkhA ?kVuk jkf= 8-30 cts ls jkf= 9-00 cts ds chp dh gSA Fkkus ij fdrus cts igqpk ;g ;kn ugh gSA txnh'k flag esjs lkeus ugha ekjs fQj dgk fd pkjks yksx dkaLVscy eku flag dks pkSjkgs ij NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij ekjs FksA eq>s ;g irk ugh gS fd txnh'k flag dh MkDVjh gqbZ gS ;k ughaA eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd txnh'k flag dk igpku i= rksM+ fn;k x;k FkkA ryk'kh esa buds ikl dqN ugha feyk FkkA lUrjh us ryk'kh fy;k FkkA eSa vkSj dkaLVscy foosd flag ekSTkwn FksA ?kVuk LFky NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ds cxy esa 50 ehVj dh nwjh ij gSA njksxk th ds ikl dkSUk lk gfFk;kj Fkk] ;g eq>s Kkr ugha gS ogkW vQjk&rQjh dk ekgkSy FkkA tc ge igqWps rks eku flag tehu ij fxjs Fks vkSj ;s pkjks yksx ekj jgs FksA ge yksx ogkW ij chp&cpko dj jgs Fks] ekj&ihV ugha dj jgs FksA tkxlZ ikdZ ij dksbZ ?kVuk ugh ?kVh FkhA txnh'k flag vkSj mudh iRuh ds lkFk dksbZ ?kVuk ugh ?kVh] cpko esa >wBk vkjksi yxk jgs gSA ?kVuk LFky ij xokg turk ds yksx Fks] eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugh gS fd dksbZ xokg cuk;k x;k ;k ughA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iqfyl pkSdh ij rFkk ------------ ds ckn gokykr esa ge yksxks us txnh'k flag dks ekjk&ihVk vkSj xkyh xykSt fd;kA eku falg dks dksbZ 'kjhj ij [kwu ugh fn[kk;h ns jgk FkkA eS esfMdy ds le; eku flag ds lkFk vLirky ugha x;k FkkA eku falg dks van#uh pksV vk;h Fkh ;g eku flag crk jgs FksA vxj eku flag ds 'kjhj ij van#uh pksV dk mYys[k MkDVj uk fd;k gks rks blds ckjs esa eSa dqN ugha dg ldrkA eku flag ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ tkuysok pksV Fkh ;k ugh] HkhM+ esa eq>s ;g /;ku ugh gSaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa ekSds ij ekStwn ugha Fkk] blfy, eq>s irk ugh fd eku flag dks tkuysok pksV vk;h Fkh ;k ughaA eSa NUnksb;k pkSjkgs dh ?kVuk ds le; ekStwn FkkA turk ds fdlh vkneh us txnh'k falg dh f'kdk;r dh Fkh ;k ugh] ;g njksxk th vkSj eku flag tkusA ;g dguk xyr gS fd iqfyl okys xkM+h psfdax ds uke ij iSlk olwy jgs Fks ftlls fookn gqvk ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd ge yksxksa us txnh'k flag dh iRuh ds lkFk NsM+[kkuh dh o ywV&ikV fd;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tc txnh'k flag vkSj mudh iRuh us iqfyl okyksa ds f[kykQ f'kdk;r dh ckr dh rks bUgsa QthZ Qalk fn;k x;kA txnh'k flag dh iRuh dks eSa ugh tkurk vkSj uk gh ;s ekSds ij FkhA ;g ?kVuk iw.kZr;k QthZ cukA gekjs lkeus njksxk th us uk rks dksbZ /kedh nh uk gh gkbZdksVZ ds ckjs esa dksbZ vi'kCn dgk vkSj uk gh igpku i= dks rksM+k uk gh iSjks ls jxM+kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ekSds ij iqfyl ds yksx u'ks esa Fks blfy, txnh'k falg dh ckr lquus dks dksbZ rS;kj ugh FkkA txnh'k flag vkSj muds lkFkh nk# ds u'ks esa FksA ;s yksx nk# fi;s gq;s Fks rFkk fpYyk jgs FksA NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij dkQh yksxks dh HkhM+ yx x;h FkhA eq>s ;g irk ugh gS fd FIR esa nk# ihus dh ckr fy[kh gS ;k ughaA ;fn FIR esa nk# ihus dh ckr ugha fy[kh x;h rks dgk xyr gS vkSj fQj dgk fd ------------ dqN ugh dg ldrsA vxj txnh'k flag nk# ih;s Fks rks esfMdy esa ;g ckr fy[kh x;h gksxhA G.D esa ;g ckr fy[kh x;h ;k ugha] ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA"
16. In the departmental enquiry, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh (Eye-witness) (E.W.5), Constable, Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow, stated as under :-
Examination-in-chief "eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gwW fd eSa o"kZ 2019 ls dkdksjh Fkkus ij rSukr gwaA fnukad 13-05-2020 dks gekjh M;wVh NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij FkhA gekjh M;wVh 4-00 cts nksigj ckn ls jkf= 12 cts rd FkhA pkSdh ls yxHkx 50 dne nwj ij >xM+k gks jgk FkkA >xM+k dkaLVscy eku falg o dkaLVscy jru falag rFkk S.I. n;k'kadj flag ls gks jgk FkkA eSa vkSj dkaLVscy eksfgr flag NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij FksA dqN yksx >xM+k LFky dh rjQ tk jgs FksA ge yksx Hkh lkFk esa py fn;sA ogkW ij eSus ns[kk fd eku flag dks tehu ij fxjk dj txnh'k falg muds mij cSBs FksA dqy pkj yksx Fks vkSj dg jgs Fks vkt bldks ekj MkysxsA ml le; djhc ukS cts dk le; FkkA ge yksxks us feydj NqMk;kA nks yksxks dks ekSds ij idM+ dj Fkkus ys x;s ckdh nks yksx Hkkx x;sA fjiksVZ fdlus fy[kk;h] ;g gesa irk ugh gSA ckn esa irk pyk fd fjiksVZ S.I. lkgc us fy[kk;h gSA Cross Examination Fkkus ls fdrus cts jokuxh gqbZ Fkh] ;g eq>s irk ugh gSA eSa M;wVh ij lh/ks vius #e ls vk;k FkkA Fkkus ij tkdj ogkW ls jokuxh ugh djk;k FkkA 4-00 cts NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij igqWp x;k FkkA pkSjkgs ls 50&60 ehVj dh nwjh ij >xM+k gqvk FkkA >xM+s ls igys D;k fookn gqvk Fkk] eq>s irk ugha gSA eq>s irk ugh gS fd >XkM+k dSls gks x;k FkkA esjs lkeus >xM+s dh 'kq#vkr ugha gqbZ FkhA vxj bl >xM+s ds iwoZ iqfyl ds yksx txnh'k flag o muds lkfFk;ksa dks ekjk ihVk gks rks bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA eq>s ;g irk ugha gS fd txnh'k flag o mudh iRuh eksVj lkbfdy ls tk jgs Fks] jksd dj mudh xkM+h psd djus yxs vkSj okn&fookn gks x;kA eq>s irk ugha gS fd txnh'k flag dh iRuh ds lkFk dgkW ij ywV&ikV o NsM[kkuh dh ?kVuk gqbZA eku falg dks dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugha FkhA eku flag dk esfMdy gqvk ;k ugh] ;g eq>dks irk ugha gSA dkSu fdldks igys ekjk] eSa ugh crk ldrkA D;ksafd eSa ?kVukLFky ij ?kVuk ds nkSjku igqWpk FkkA txnh'k falg o muds lkFkh fugRFks FksA txnh'k falg us ,d gkFk ls xyk nck;k Fkk rFkk ,d gkFk ls ekj jgs FksA ckdh muds rhu vU; lkFkh txnh'k falag dk laj{k.k dj jgs Fks vkSj dg jgs Fks fd bldks tku ls [kRe dj nksA eq>s irk ugh gS fd njksxk ds ikl fiLVy Fkk ;k ughaA iz'u vki ekSds ij ekStwn ugha Fks blfy, vkidks irk ugh fd njksxk th ds ikl fiLVy Fkk ;k ugha\ mRrj& D;ksafd ?kVuk igys ls gks jgh Fkh vkSj dkQh yksx ,d= gks jgs Fks ge yksx ckn esa igqWps bl otg ls ge fiLVy dk /;ku ugha dj ik;s fd fiLVy gS ;k ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ekSds ij HkhM+ ugha Fkh ;g Hkh dguk xyr gS fd eaS ekSds ij dqN ugha ns[k ik;kA pkSdh ij eqfYteku dks ugh ys tk;k x;k FkkA pkSdh ij dksbZ ekjihV ugha gqbZ FkhA gesa ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd njksxk th us gkbZdksVZ dk igpku&i= rksM+ fn;k FkkA eku flag dks ?kVuk ds le; dsoy txnh'k flag idMs Fks vkSj muds mij cSBs FksA xkyh lHkh yksx ns jgs FksA eq>s irk ugha fd ekjihV nksuks i{kksa esa gks jgh Fkh ;k ughaA eSa ?kVuk LFky ij ?kVuk ds nkSjku igqpk Fkk blfy, eq>s irk ugha fd nksuks i{kksa esa igys ls ekjihV gks jgh Fkh ;k ughaA gokykr esa gqbZ ekjihV ds ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd gkbZdksVZ ds izfr vi'kCn dk iz;ksx dj jgs Fks vkSj xkyh ns jgs FksA "
17. In the departmental enquiry, Sri Man Singh (Victim) (E.W.2), Constable, Police Station: Kakori, District Lucknow, stated as under :-
Examination-in-chief "eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gw¡ fd eSa PRV esa march 2020 ls rSukr gwaA PRV esa Fkkus ds fglkc ls duty yxrh gSA ?kVuk fnuakd 13-05-2020 dks esjh duty Fkkuk dkdksjh {ks= esa FkhA eSa nqCkXxk {ks= esa FkkA lwpuk EkSa vkezikyh ;kstuk ls Attend dj okil nqcXxk vk jgk FkkA djhc 7-45 ij vkezikyh ;kstuk ls okil ykSV jgk FkkA tSls tkxlZ ikdZ pkSjkgs ij igqWpk] ogka ij dqN yksx FksA esjs lkFk dkaLVscy jru dqekj pkS/kjh PRV Two Wheeler ij FksA tkxlZ pkSjkgs ls NUnksb;k dh rjQ pkj yksx [kM+s gS] Public ds yksxks us ;g Hkh crk;k fd oks pkjks yksx jkgxhjks ls xkyh&xykSt dj jgs gS rks ge nksuks PRV ds yksx ekSds ij igqWpsA ogk ij pkj yksx txnh'k flag gj}kjh izlkn] vuwi dqekj xqIrk o ,d vU; ftudk uke ugh irk] [kM+s FksA ge yksxks us mlls [kM+s gksus dk dkj.k iwNkA ;g pkjks yksx xkyh&xykSt djus yxs vkSj dgus yxs fd iqfyl dh vkSdkr cky cjkcj gS vkSj S.P. vkdj lykeh Bksdrs gSA eSus mlds ckn pkSdh bapktZ Jh n;k 'kadj flag dks Qksu fd;kA Jh n;k'kadj falg ekSds ij vk x;s vkSj bu yksxks dks le>kus dk iz;kl fd;k vkSj dgk fd vki yksx ?kj tkb;s vkSj yM+kbZ >xM+k er dhft, ijUrq ;g yksx ugha ekusA pkjks yksx vkxs&vkxs NUnksb;k dh rjQ py fn;s vkSj ge yksx ihNs&ihNs py fn;sA vpkud ;g pkjks yksx ,d jk; gksdj ge rhuks iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks ekjus yxs vkSj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus yxsA tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls pkjks yksx eq>dks tehu ij fxjk fn;k vkSj esjk xyk nck fn;sA NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ij gh dkaLVscy eksfgr o dkaLVscy foosd vk x;s vkSj lHkh yksxks us chp cpko fd;kA ekSds ds Qk;nk mBkdj nks yksx Hkkx x;s ,oa Jh txnh'k o gfj}kjh izlkn dks idM+ fy;k x;kA buds yksxks dks idM+ dj Fkkus ys x;s vkSj F.I.R. ntZ djk;h x;hA Cross Examination "vkezikyh ;kstuk ls fdlus lwpuk fn;k Fkk ;g ;kn ugha gSA Event No- 0061 gSA tkxnh'k pkSjkgs ij fdrus cts igqWpk ;g ;kn ugha gSA tkxlZ pkSjkgs ij gSA Public ds yksxks us crk;k Fkk fd NUnksb;k pkSjkgs ds igys pkj toku yksx jkgxhjks ls xkyh xykSt dj jgs gSA fdu yksxks us ge yksxks dks crk;k] mudk uke irk ugha uksV fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh mudh xokgh esa uke Mkyk x;k gSA jkgxhj ftu yksxks dks ;g pkjks yksx xkyh xykSt ns jgs Fks] og yksx tc ge yksx ogkW igqWps ogkW ugha FksA ftu jkgxhjksa dks bu pkjksa yksxks us xkyh xykSt fn;k Fkk buesa ls fdlh us fyf[kr f'kdk;r Fkkuk dkdksjh ;k nqcXxk pkSdh ij ugha dhA lk<+s vkB&ikSus ukS cts ds djhc bu yksxks ¼eqfYteku½ ds ikl ge yksx igqWp x;s FksA ogkW ij [kM+s gksus dk dkj.k jru dqekj pkS/kjh us iwNk Fkk] eSus ugha iwNk FkkA tc ekSds ij ge yksx igqWps rks bu pkjks dk vykok ogkW dksbZ vkSj ugha FkkA jru dqekj pkS/kjh us tc ;g iwNk fd ;gkW D;ksa [kM+s gks rks mu yksxks us dgk fd D;ks distrbdj jgs ghA bruk ;kn ugha gS fd xkyh fdlus nh FkhA pkSdh bapktZ dks eSus Qksu fd;k Fkk] fdrus cts fd;k Fkk] ;g ;kn ugha gSA pkSdh bapktZ dks dj vkus esa djhc pkj N% feuV yxk FkkA gey nksuks ihvkjoh ds flikgh ds ikl dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha FkkA pkSdh bapktZ Jh n;k'kadj flag ds ikl ljdkjh fiLVy FkkA 2 ih,e ls 10 ih,e ds fl¶V esa gekjh MîwVh FkhA dkuwu iqfyl dks gfFk;kj pykus dh vuqefr ugha nsrk gSA dsoy fn[kkus ds fy,A fQj dgk fd eSa gfFk;kj ds ckjs esa ugha crk ldrk gfFk;kj D;ksa feyk gqvk gSA n;k'kadj flag dks fdlus xkyh fn;k] ;g ;kn ugha gSA ;g ugha irk fd fdlus xkyh fn;k] fdlu xkyh ugha fn;kA le>kus ds ckn ;g yksx vkxs py fn;sA ;g ugha irk fd vfHk;qäx.k ogkW ls fdrus cts pys FksA ge yksx Hkh buds ihNs pkSdh dh rjQ py fn;sA vpkud djhc pkSdh ls 50 ehVj igys ;g pkjks yksx :d x;sA pkjks yksx :d x;sA pkjks yksx fQj xkyh xykSt djus yxsA nksuks i{kks esa ekj ihV gksus yxhA pkjks yksx dsoy geh dks idM+s vkSj gekjs lkFk ekStwn dkaLVscy jru dqekj pkS/kjh o lc bUlisDVj n;k'kadj flag tks gekjh enn dj jgs Fks vkSj nks flikgh ogkW vkSj vk x;s ;s ftudk uke eSus mij dkaLVscy eksfgr flag o dkaLVscy foosd flag crk;k gS tc gedks tehu ij fxjk fn;s Fks rc mä nksuks flikgh vk;s FksA txnh'k flag o muds lkFk ds yksxks us dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha ç;ksx fd;k FkkA eq>s ;kn ugha gSA fd eq>s fdlus iVdk Fkk] ;g Hkh ;kn ugha gS fd xyk fdlus nck;k FkkA iqfyl fd ckdh yksxksa us feydj eq>s NqM+k fy;k vkSj ekSds ij gh nks yksxks dks idM+ fy;k vkSj nks yksx ekSds dk Qk;nk mBkdj Hkkx x;s eq>s ;g ;kn ugha gS fd vkezikyh ;kstuk ls lwpuk fdrus cts feyh FkhA buds ikl ok;jysl lsV ugha FkkA mobile data terminal lsV Fkk eSus n;k'kadj flag dks lwpuk ,e Mh Vh ls ugha fn;k Fkk] eksckby Qksu ls fn;k FkkA n;k'kadj flag dk eksckby uEcj ;kn ugha gSA ge bu yksxks ds ikl ekSds ij x;sA vkSj [kM+s gksus dk dkj.k iwNkA esjk esfMdy 14-05-2020 dks yxHkx 12 cts fnu esa gqvk] ;g ;kn ugha gS fd ,Q-vkbZ-vkj esfMdy djkus ds igys ntZ gks x;h FkhA vkbZ dkMZ fdlus rksM+k Fkk ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA ekj ihV nksuks i{kksa ls gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd geus gkbZ dksVZ esa gksus dh vkSdkr dh ckr dh FkhA gokykr esa ekj ihV gksus dh tkudkjh ls Fkkus ugha x;k FkkA ekj ihV lcds lkFk gqbZ FkhA blfy, ,Q-vkbZ-vkj n;k'kadj flag us djk;h FkhA eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd txnh'k flag vkSj mudh iRuh ds lkFk dksbZ ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa tkWp py jgh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd txnh'k flag dh iRuh ds lkFk ?kVuk gks jgh Fkh vkSj gj}kjh flag tks MîwVh djds okil ykSV jgs Fks muds chp cpko djus ij mudks Hkh mYVk QSlk fn;k x;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd geus QthZ ¼xokg esa½ fjiksVZ rS;kj djk;h gS ¼esfMdy fjiksVZ½ esfMdy fjiksVZ esa fdlh pksV uk gksus ds ckjs esa dqN ugha dguk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mPp vf/kdkjh ds ncko esa eSus QthZ esfMdy fjiksVZ cuok;k gSA ;g irk ugha gS fd fdlus esjk xyk nck;k FkkA"
18. Upon due consideration of the charges and the entire evidence available on record as also the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Registrar General of this Court, vide order dated 13.07.2021, exonerated the applicant from the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings/departmental inquiry no. 16 of 2020 and subsequently, the suspension of the applicant was revoked vide order dated 15.07.2021, which is evident from the order dated 15.07.2021, quoted herein-under:
"Under the orders of Learned Registrar General dated 13.07.2021, Shri Jagdish Kumar Singh, (Emp. No. 10834), Assistant Review Officer, High Court, Aliahabad is hereby exonerated from the charge levelled against him under Rule 3 U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. in Departmental Inquiry No. 16 of 2020.
The suspension of Shri Jagdish Kumar Singh is hereby revoked immediately which shall be subject to outcome of criminal matter registered against him."
19. It would be apt to indicate that this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2021, passed in Writ Petition No. 25026 (M/B) of 2021 (Jagdish Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others) directed re-investigation/further investigation in the matter. The operative portion of the order dated 02.12.2021 is extracted herein-under:-
"When we examine the complete facts of this case, what we find is that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged by the police personnel of Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow and investigation of the F.I.R. also appears to have been done by a police personnel belonging to the same police station.
In these circumstances, we provide that the competent officer of the police department of the Lucknow Rural shall ensure that investigation /further investigation of the F.I.R. is conducted by a police officer belonging to a police station other than the police station Kakori."
20. In compliance of the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court, Investigating Officer upon due investigation submitted his report on 16.04.2022 supporting the charge sheet No. 01 dated 14.07.2020.
21. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 24.08.2022 by this Court and to recall the order dated 24.08.2022 an application for recall was preferred which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2022.
22. After the aforesaid, the applicant challenged the charge sheet No. 01 dated 14.07.2020 and entire criminal proceedings arsing out of FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020 before this Court by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2283 of 2023.
23. The applicant on 28.08.2023 also preferred the discharge application before Additional District Judge-VII, Lucknow, which was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2024 and thereafter, the APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 5413 of 2024 was filed.
24. Pressing the application(s) for the relief(s) sought, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the departmental proceedings in which witnesses namely Sri Daya Shankar Singh, Sri Man Singh, Sri Mohit Singh and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh were examined and all these witnesses would be examined before the trial Court as is apparent from the charge-sheet no. 01 dated 14.07.2020, the charge-sheet no. 02 dated 01.11.2020 and the charge-sheet no. 03 dated 16.02.2021 and after examining the statements of these witnesses in the departmental proceedings, which was initiated in the light of the allegations levelled in the FIR and the same is the basis of the pending criminal proceedings and allegations-charges in both the proceedings are same/identical, the applicant has already been exonerated by the order of the Registrar General of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2021 and subsequently his suspension was revoked vide order dated 15.07.2021 and accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the pending criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court.
25. It is stated that in the departmental proceedings, the person can be punished on the preponderance of the probability and in the criminal trial court, the prosecution has to establish/prove its case beyond doubt and when the applicant has already been exonerated on the same evidence to keep the proceedings continue before the trial Court would be futile exercise.
26. Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State opposed prayers sought in above noted applications.
27. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.
28. The question which arises in the present matter for the consideration of this Court is that as to whether the proceedings arising out of Case Crime/FIR No. 0271 of 2020 which are premised on same/identical allegations on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant are liable to be quashed once the applicant has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings.
29. In P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1, the appellant therein was exonerated of all the charges in the departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission and the conclusion of exoneration was concurred by the Union Public Service Commission which led to the passing of final orders by the President in favour of the appellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of the charge, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court formulated the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission."...
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court answered the above formulated question and quashed the criminal proceedings by observing as under:
"17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.....
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-19961 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.
31. In Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC 130, an FIR was registered against the appellant therein alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation of Rs.4,39,617/-. In departmental proceedings with identical charges, the appellant was exonerated on the ground that it was not clear as to who received the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon copies of bills were not available. In the criminal case, the police submitted the final report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate based upon the statement of the complainant directed re-investigation. Thereafter, investigation remained pending for 12-13 years. The appellant being aggrieved approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him, but the High Court declined to quash the FIR. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings. Relying upon the decision of P.S. Rajya (Supra), it was observed as under:
"23. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, this Court noticed that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of report of the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission. The criminal case was pending since long, in spite of the fact that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding for same charge.
24. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that if the charges which are identical could not be established in the departmental proceedings, one wonders what is there further to proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings.
25. Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR......
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
28. .......Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and as the appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be quashed."
32. In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 581, the question arose that after the exoneration of the appellant in the adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, whether criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can be allowed to be continued. In this factual backdrop, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27) I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
38.The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court."
33. In the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewai (Supra) Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the report of Central Vigilance Commission (in short "C.V.C.") and the fact that in the criminal trial an order was passed on 27.06.2012 by the Special Judge, CBI (ACB), Pune, observing therein that in the facts of the case sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required and the said order was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 11.07.2014 and the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking note of the same and the principles related to standard of proof in departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings passed the final order and judgment dated 08.09.2020, whereby discharged the appellant from the offences under the penal code. Relevant portion of the report reads as under:
"8. A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , the question before the Court was posed as follows: (SCC pp. 2-3, para 3) "3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission."
9. This Court then went on to state: (P.S. Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 5, para 17) "17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it."
10. This being the case, the Court then held: (P.S. Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 9, para 23) "23. Even though all these facts including the report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view [Prabhu Saran Rajya v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5212 of 1992, order dated 3-8-1993 (Pat)] that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs."
11. In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , this Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 594-96, paras 26, 29 & 31) "26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [B.N. Kashyap v. Crown, 1944 SCC OnLine Lah 46 : AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (SCC OnLine Lah: AIR p. 27) '... I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined.' ***
29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Malhotra that the finding in an adjudication proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree whereas in a criminal case the entire burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution.
***
31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case."
12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598) "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598, para 39) "39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court."
14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.
15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-12-2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.
34. In the case of J. Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 370, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under:
"20. In the said sequel of facts, the legal position as it emerges by the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] is relevant in which this Court has culled out the ratio of the various other decisions pertaining to the issue involved and has observed as thus: (Ashoo Surendranath Tewari case [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] , SCC pp. 642-43, paras 12-14) "12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598, para 12) '38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.'
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598, para 39) '39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.'
14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court has bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated."
In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] , this Court relied upon the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] and set aside the judgment [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Supt. of Police, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court while exonerating the appellants because the chance of conviction in a criminal case in the same facts appeared to be bleak.
21. In view of the aforesaid legal position and on analysing the report of the IT Department and the reasoning given by CBI while submitting the final closure report in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the order passed by the adjudicating authority, it is clear that for proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, the property seized would be relevant and its possession with recovery and claim thereto must be innocent. In the present case, the Schedule Offence has not been made out because of lack of evidence. The adjudicating authority, at the time of refusing to continue the order of attachment under PMLA, was of the opinion that the record regarding banks and its officials who may be involved, is not on record. Therefore, for lack of identity of the source of collected money, it could not be reasonably believed by the Deputy Director (ED) that the unaccounted money is connected with the commission of offence under PMLA. Simultaneously, the letter of the IT Department dated 16-5-2019 and the details as mentioned, makes it clear that for the currency seized, the tax is already paid, therefore, it is not the quantum earned and used for money laundering. In our opinion, even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. On perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons specified in PMLA, it is the stringent law brought by Parliament to check money laundering. Thus, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the Court. Even otherwise, it is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out. Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the court of law, the person is innocent. In the said backdrop, the ratio of the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] in paras 38(vi) and (vii) are aptly applicable in the facts of the present case.
22. As discussed above, looking to the facts of this case, it is clear by a detailed order of acceptance of the closure report of the Schedule Offence in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the quashment of two FIRs by the High Court of the Schedule Offence and of the letter dated 16-5-2019 of the IT Department and also the observations made by the adjudicating authority in the order dated 25-2-2019, the evidence of continuation of offence in ECR CEZO 19/2016 is not sufficient. The Department itself is unable to collect any incriminating material and also not produced before this Court even after a lapse of 5½ years to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the material collected by the Agency, they themselves are prima facie not satisfied that the offence under PMLA can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The argument advanced by the learned ASG regarding pendency of the appeal against the order of adjudicating authority is also of no help because against the order of the appellate authority also, remedies are available. Thus, looking to the facts as discussed hereinabove and the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] , the chance to prove the allegations even for the purpose of provisions of PMLA in the Court are bleak. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the chances to prove those allegations in the Court are very bleak. It is trite to say, till the allegations are proved, the appellant would be innocent. The High Court by the impugned order [J. Sekar v. SRS Mining, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 13804] has recorded the finding without due consideration of the letter of the IT Department and other material in right perspective. Therefore, in our view, these findings of the High Court cannot be sustained.
23. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order [J. Sekar v. SRS Mining, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 13804] passed by the High Court. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. ECR CEZO 19/2016 including Complaint bearing No. 2 of 2017 stands quashed."
35. The settled position from the above refereed judgments is to the effect that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same/identical set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. The reasoning for this conclusion/proposition in the above referred judgments is that the standard of proceedings in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt which is far higher than preponderance of probability, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings. When the same witnesses could not be able to prove/establish the same/identical charges in the disciplinary proceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in departmental proceedings.
36. The reliability and genuineness of the allegations against the applicant has already been tested during the disciplinary proceedings and the applicant has been exonerated after taking note of the statements of witnesses who would prove the same/identical charges in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that in the present matter interference of this Court is required and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020, detailed above, are liable to be set aside in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
37. For the reasons aforesaid, both the application(s), indicated above, are allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020 are quashed/set aside qua the applicant/Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh .
38. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith.
Order Date :- 04.10.2024 Mohit Singh/-