Allahabad High Court
Hriday Narayan Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 November, 2020
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10812 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA.
2. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 06.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 285 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station-Sidhari, District-Azamgarh with a further prayer to direct the respondents to not to arrest the petitioners in connection with said crime.
3. Case of the petitioners is that petitioners have secured their appointment as 'Assistant Teacher' in various primary schools of District-Azamgarh. It is alleged that such appointments were procured on the basis of the forged academic documents and after discovering this fact of forgery, services of the petitioners have been terminated and a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 was appointed vide order dated 03.01.2006 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh, whereas petitioner no. 2 was appointed vide order dated 26.08.2016, after due verification of their academic documents. After having put several years of service, finding fault with the documents which were already verified at the time of appointment, is malafide. It is further submitted that petitioners have already filed Writ-A challenging the order of termination and under similar facts and circumstances, other co-accused persons had preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5026 of 2020 (Karuna Rai and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), wherein coordinate Bench has taken a view that in the light of law laid down in case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, petitioners shall not be arrested in the matter, till the credible evidence is not available against them during the investigation or till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier.
5. Learned counsel for the State, in his turn, submits that order passed in case of Karuna Rai and another (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as probably, it was not pointed out before a coordinate Bench that the order of termination itself makes a mention that on verification of educational qualification documents of petitioner no. 1 from National Post Graduate College, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur, it has come on record that roll no. 81089 for B.Sc. IIIrd year Examination in the year 1998 was not allotted to the petitioner. It has also come on record that petitioner no. 1 was issued show cause notice on 10.09.2014, when petitioner no. 1 vide his letter dated 30.09.2014 produced a IIIrd year B.Sc. marksheet bearing roll no. 100256 against the earlier document submitted by petitioner no. 1, showing roll no. 81089 mentioning name of National Post Graduate College, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur. Even the Deputy Secretary/Public Information Officer of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gorakhpur Vishwavidyalaya, Gorakhpur informed that for B.Sc. final year 1998 examination, roll numbers which were allotted to the students of National Post Graduate College, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur were from 100125-100255. Neither roll no. 81089 or 100256 were allotted to the students of said National Post Graduate College, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur.
6. Thus, it is submitted that when there is clear evidence available on record, then petitioners cannot claim parity with the order of Karuna Rai and another (supra) which gives protection only till discovery of credible evidence or submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. which has the object of submitting a chargesheet on completion of investigation and collection of credible evidence.
7. In the present case, since credible evidence in regard to petitioner no. 1 is available on record, it has been collated by the authorities, petitioner was subjected to a show cause notice, it cannot be said that petitioner's case is at par with Karuna Rai and another (supra). Petitioner no. 2 has not filed her order of termination.
8. Prima facie, not only a cognizable case is made out, but also there is reliable evidence available on record as is apparent from the order of termination enclosed by the petitioner no. 1 and in view of such facts, no protection is required especially in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Represented by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma as reported in AIR 1997 SC 3806, wherein it observed and approved the submission of the C.B.I. that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
9. Law laid down in case of Joginder Kumar (supra), is also not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Joginder Kumar (supra) is a case of writ petition under Article 32, seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus. In Para 9, it is held that a realistic approach should be made in the matter of law of arrest, balancing individual rights, liabilities and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other.
10. Fact is that rights of an individual are to be balanced with the collective. Can we overlook, what appears to be priam facie credible evidence at the peril of the society; whether such evidence be overlooked in the frame of individual rights? All these questions have not been considered in the case of Karuna Rai and another (supra) Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Karuna Rai and another (supra) is not applicable as a precedent.
11. In view of ratio of law laid down in above quoted pronouncements of the Supreme Court, neither FIR can be quashed nor any protection can be extended in favour of the petitioner under Section 173(2). Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.11.2020 Vikram/-A