Allahabad High Court
Constable Rajesh Kumar Rana And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 February, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19833 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1696 of 2025 Applicant :- Constable Rajesh Kumar Rana And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Constable Rajesh Kumar Rana and Constable Gopal Ji Dwivedi with the prayer to quash the entire Criminal Case No. 2412 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajesh Rana and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2004, under Sections 388, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 13(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Raipurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Special Judge (Additional District and Sessions Judge) Prevention of Corruption Act, VIII, Lucknow in terms of application supported by affidavit dated 28.11.2024 filed by the opposite party no.2(informant) and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
4. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 12.07.2004 by Ashiq Hussain the opposite party no.2 against Rajesh Rana, Gopal Dubey and two unknown persons as Case Crime No. 193 of 2004, under Section 384 IPC and 13(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Raipurwa, District Kanpur Nagar. The facts of the case and contents of the FIR are not being dilated herein as would have no relevance in deciding the present matter.
5. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 47/2005 dated 09.06.2005 was filed against Constable 19 Rajesh Kumar Rana and Constable 2344/2696 Gopal Ji Dubey for offences under Sections 388, 342, 323 IPC and Section 7/13(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court concerned took cognizance upon the same vide order dated 15.07.2005 and summoned the accused persons. Subsequently, a writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 731 of 2007 (Ashik Hussain Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed by the first informant before this Court with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 to register the FIR treating the application dated 01.04.2004 made by the petitioner to Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow as first information.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the C.B.I. or any other independent agency to investigate the offence in pursuance of the information dated 01.04.2004 after registering F.I.R. in accordance with law.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to direct the enquiry officer as mentioned in (Annexure-3) to complete the enquiry and submit the enquiry report before this Hon'ble Court.
iv) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
6. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a complainant in a case punishable under Section 384 IPC and Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act in the court of 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. He has raised some objections in regard to the proceeding and intended to make an application but his application was not received by the court below. His submission is that he is still ready to make such application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is at liberty to make an application as he desires in the trial court and the trial court shall hear the petitioner and dispose of his application first thereafter the trial will proceed in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 had moved an application before the trial court concerned alleging therein that his false statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer by taking his signatures on blank papers and has falsely implicated the applicants. The said application has been placed before the Court which is annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that subsequently further an application dated 21.12.2022 was filed by the opposite party no.2/first informant before the trial court concerned giving reference of the order dated 29.01.2007 of the High Court with the prayer that the present case has been cooked up against the police personnels and he does not want any action against them since they have been falsely implicated in the matter, copy of the said application along with affidavit has been placed before the Court which is annexure 14 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that another application dated 28.11.2024 has been moved by the first informant before the trial court concerned as a supplementary application to the application dated 21.12.2022 with the prayer that the proceedings against the applicants be immediately dropped. It is submitted that as such the fact which appears from the records is that the first informant does not want proceedings against the applicants since they have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted while placing para 10 and 11 of the affidavit that the opposite party no.2 is an illiterate person and signatures were obtained on blank papers on which his statement was written and used to falsely implicate the applicants. It is submitted that the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submits that the applicants are named in the FIR along with two unknown persons. It is submitted that the matter was investigated and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned them. It is further submitted that in so far as the ground of obtaining signatures on blank papers for the statement of the first informant is concerned, the same is a false statement as no such act was done by the Investigating Agency. It is further submitted that even as per the statute, statement of the first informant as a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is an unsigned statement and thus there was no use of papers being signed by him which were blank. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on. It is submitted that the proceedings in the matter are serious in nature and quashing of the same cannot be permitted on the basis of compromise since the proceedings are even under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the petition be thus dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit, against the settled principles of law and without any substantial ground.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are named accused. They are specifically named in the FIR. The investigation concluded and charge sheet has been filed against them on which the court concerned has taken cognizance. The trial is under progress. The ground of the first informant for the applicants to have been falsely nominated in the case, cannot be seen at this stage. The applicants are named in the FIR and even during investigation their complicity has surfaced. In so far as the factum of moving of application for dropping of proceedings by the first informant is concerned, the present proceedings are under the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Apex Court has clearly held that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed even on the basis of compromise. The said law is trite as has been held in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat : (2017) 9 SCC 641.
10. In view of the same, no ground exists to interfere in the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. the same is thus dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)