Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Ranjan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 December, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:198272 Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42485 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Ranjan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Sri Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for the State are present and have been heard.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar Ranjan with the following prayers :-
" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 15.06.2024 registered as Charge Sheet No. 7 of 2024, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside an impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi in Special Trial No. 598 of 2024, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur (State vs. Raj Kumar Ranjan), arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the proceeding of Special Trial No. 598 of 2024, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur (State vs. Raj Kumar Ranjan), arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur, pending before the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Curt may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Trial No. 598 of 2024, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur (State vs. Raj Kumar Ranjan), arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur, pending before the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant will suffer great irreparable loss and injury, which may not be compensated with any kind."
3. The facts of the case are that the first information report dated 07.11.2020 was lodged by the Anti-Corruption Department Uttar Padesh against the applicant with the allegation that during the check period 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012, the applicant had been found to have disproportionate assets which are excess to his known sources of income. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet no. 7 of 2024 dated 15.06.2024 was filed against the applicant on which the court concerned vide order dated 18.06.2024, summoned the applicant. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has thus been filed with the prayers as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh Government and was a hard and honest worker. It is submitted while placing paragraph no. 24, 25 and 26 that income of the wife of applicant and her salary and also loan taken by them for purchase of vehicle and plots, has not been considered correctly. It is submitted that even the expenditure of the applicant has not been calculated properly. It is submitted that the income of the wife of applicant and expenses of the applicant and his wife have wrongly been calculated, paragraph nos. 44, 45, 46 and 48 of the affidavit have been placed before this Court. It is further submitted that the proceedings thus are with mala fide intention and deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
6. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is facing prosecution for his income disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against him on which the court concerned has taken cognizance. Challenge to the proceeding has been made by him on the ground that the income of his wife and his income and also their expenses had not been properly considered in the investigation.
7. The Apex Court, in State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu : (2023) 6 SCC 768 has held that the claim by contending that the Investigating officer has not considered the proper explanation and income of other family members and also failed to consider the assets lawfully acquired by the wife is not tenable since the accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged disproportionate assets to the investigating Office before the filing of charge-sheet. Paragraph 45 of the same reads as under:
"45. In K. Veeraswami [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 715, para 75) "75. ... since the legality of the charge-sheet has been impeached, we will deal with that contention also. Counsel laid great emphasis on the expression "for which he cannot satisfactorily account" used in clause (e) of Section 5(1) of the Act. He argued that that term means that the public servant is entitled to an opportunity before the investigating officer to explain the alleged disproportionality between assets and the known sources of income. The investigating officer is required to consider his explanation and the charge-sheet filed by him must contain such averment. The failure to mention that requirement would vitiate the charge-sheet and renders it invalid. This submission, if we may say so, completely overlooks the powers of the investigating officer. The investigating officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary, he may cross check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires as rightly stated by Mr A.D. Giri, learned Solicitor General, that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after collection of all material the investigating officer must give an opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating the investigating oficer to the position of an enquiry officer or a Judge. The investigating officer is not holding an enquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the disproportionality between the assets and the income of the accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report which he files in the court as charge-sheet."
(emphasis supplied)"
8. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and also the law on the subject, it is clear that the argument and pleadings of the applicant cannot be looked into and considered at this stage for quashing of proceedings in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case cannot such be considered for quashing in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004)1 SCC 691 and Neeharika Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra : (2021) 19 SCC 401. The same are matters of trial.
9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus, devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2024 / Manoj