Allahabad High Court
Mukul Mishra vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 18 July, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114255-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9432 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mukul Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Bhaskar Parihar,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gyanendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gyanendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.03.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0041 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B, 201 IPC, at Police Station- Siddharth Nagar, District-Siddharth Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the present case.
3. At the very outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the informant that writ petitions filed by the co-accused being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 4938 of 2024, 5038 of 2024 and5885 of 2024 have already been dismissed on merits vide orders dated 14.5.2024, 24.5.2024 and 24.5.2024 respectively. One of the aforesaid order dated 24.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5885 of 2024 is quoted as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents, and perused the record.
2. The instant petition has been filed assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.03.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0041 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,120B, 201 IPC, at Police Station- Siddharth Nagar, District-Siddharth Nagar, in which the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused along with Mukul Mishra, Shivsagar Chaubey and Kunwar Vikram Pandey. The petitioner approached this Court with twofold prayers; (i) quashing of the impugned F.I.R., (ii) stay of arrest.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the complaint of Shri Vinod Pratap, social worker, the impugned F.I.R. was registered about the issuance of fake appointment letters and unauthorized recognition of the schools for the purpose of teachers' appointment. The department has unauthorizedly disbursed salaries to their accounts during the tenure of Ram Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar. It is alleged that fictitious appointments were made with respect to the Assistant Teacher Urdu, and around 15 schools were given fake recognition by the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari with the aid and assistance of co-accused persons.
4. The petitioner's case is that; (i) petitioner has arrayed as an accused on the basis of false allegations for protecting the interest of co-accused Mukul Mishra, (ii) no action has been taken against co-accused Mukul Mishra, by the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ram Singh nor by the petitioner, (iii) the petitioner has assumed the charge of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar on 09.10.2021 and since then no appointment was made,therefore, the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by the police, at behest of the complainant, (iv) the petitioner and 50 other persons have already been granted protection in Case Crime No. 41 of 2020, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh; the said F.I.R. was registered while he was posted as Basic Shiksha Adhikari in District Azamgarh, (v) the Single Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 5540 of 2020 has set aside the termination of all the 50 petitioners vide order dated 14.10.2020, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, (vi) the petitioner has joined the duty on 09.10.2020 as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar and thereafter, cancelled the recognition of all fictitious schools and initiated the departmental proceedings against co-accused Mukul Mishra. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that he is protecting the co-accused Mukul Mishra, and therefore, his name has been figured in the impugned F.I.R., (vii) the complainant -Vinod Pratap Singh is a habitual complainant and District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, vide order dated 15.02.2008, issued an administrative order to all the concerned departments that no cognizance should be taken on complaint of complainant -Vinod Pratap Singh.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed significant reliance on the Government Order dated 19.07.2005, issued by the Chief Secretary U.P. to all the Principal Secretary, Head of the Department, Commissioners, and District Magistrates. This Government Order, which is of utmost importance to the petitioner's case, states that if any employee or officer has committed any irregularity, the F.I.R. shall be registered only after completion of the departmental inquiry.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the impugned F.I.R. was registered on 16.03.2024 against the petitioners. The petitioner's name is placed at serial number 2 in column 7 (details of accused/suspects with full particulars) of impugned F.I.R. There are specific allegations against the petitioners for issuing forged recognition letters to 15 schools. The petitioner has protected the subordinate officer and did not act against him in accordance with the law. The investigation is at the initial stage, and any indulgence by this Court, either by a stay of arrest or quashing of F.I.R., would amount to interference in the investigation and would thwart the investigation. The Government Order dated 19.07.2005 does not carry any relevance in view of Section 154 Cr.P.C.
7. Be that as it may, corruption in the fake appointment of teachers erodes the trust of the common man in government department. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia disclosing all the facts and details related to the offence. The truthfulness of the information would be a matter of investigation, and only then can the police report on its truthfulness or otherwise.
8. F.I.R. can be quashed in certain circumstances, and these circumstances include cases where the F.I.R. is found to be an abuse of the legal process, registered with ulterior motives, or where it does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It's crucial to consider whether the allegations, even when taken at face value, do not constitute an offence. Additionally, F.I.R. lodged to settle personal or commercial vendettas without involving larger public interests can be considered for quashing. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1 has been a significant reference point in criminal jurisprudence when it comes to the quashing of F.I.R.
9. We do not find force in the argument of petitioner's counsel, therefore, the petition is devoid of merits, thus, it is dismissed with the direction to the I.O. to expedite the investigation in accordance with Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.2."
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has also found guilty in the departmental proceedings and minor punishment was also awarded.
5. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In such view of the matter, present petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Lalit Shukla