Allahabad High Court
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 July, 2022
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12691 of 2015 Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.C. Tiwari,Gaurav Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0 516 lu 2002] vUrxZr /kkjk 306 Hkk0na0fo0 ,oa 3(2)V SC/ST Act] Fkkuk dksrokyh] ftyk Q:Z[kkckn esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 30&11&2002 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 6476 lu 2005] tks lh0ts0,e0] Q:Z[kkckn ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS] ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us izfr'kiFki= nkf[ky fd;k] bls i=koyh ij j[kk tk;A vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk lqHkk"k pUnz frokjh ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd dUukSt tuin esa ftyk cpr vf/kdkjh ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk izkFkfedh ds vuqlkj vkosnd }kjk dksbZ vijk/k djuk ugha izrhr gksrk gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij nkf.Md fjV fiVh'ku nkf[ky dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa vkosnd dh fxjQ~rkjh LFkfxr dh x;h FkhA blds i'pkr vkosnd dk bVkok tuin esa LFkkukUrj.k gks x;k rFkk ogkW mls dksbZ uksfVl ;k rych vkns'k dk rkehyk ugha gqvk] ftlds dkj.k bl U;k;ky; esa yfEcr okn esa mldh vksj ls dksbZ foyEc ugha fd;k x;kA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd bl izdj.k esa foospuk ds i'pkr vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k] ftl ij vfxze foospuk dk vkns'k ikfjr gqvk] ftlds vk/kkj ij foospd }kjk bl izdj.k esa 2 ckj vfUre vk[;k izLrqr dh x;h] blds ckotwn Hkh vkosnd ds fo:) vkjksi i= izsf"kr dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj mijksDr leLr rF;ksa dks ns[kus ls vkosnd funksZ"k gS rFkk mlds fo:) yfEcr mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us muds dFkuksa dk izcy fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd foospd }kjk vkosnd ds fo:) ;g vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS fd "foospu c;kukr xokgku uD'kk utjh] lqlkbM uksV o vU; tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr [kkuk uEcj 3 izHkkr dqekj feJk ds fo:) tqeZ /kkjk 306 Hkk0na0fo0 o 3(2)V SC/ST Act] c[kwch lkfcr gSA vfHk;qDr izHkkr dqekj feJk dk vkjksi i= izsf"kr djus rd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dk fxjQ~rkjh dk LFkxu vkns'k gS] vr% }kjk vkjksi i= la[;k 253@2002 fnukad 30&11&2002 pkyku cvnkyr fd;k tkrk gSA" e`rd nkrkjke] ofj"B fyfid fd'kksj dY;k.k dksMZ Qrsgx<+ }kjk vius lqlkbM uksV esa dgk x;k gS fd "esjs thfor jgrs ;g dk;Z (nksuksa tuinksa dk) ugha gVsxk vkSj eSa cjkcj nks vf/kdkfj;ksa ds chp esa filrk jgwWxkA blfy, Jh izHkkr feJ ,oa Jh 'kf'k /kj f}osnh eq0fo0v0 egksn; dh izrkM+uk ls cpus ds fy, vius izk.kksa dk cfynku dj jgk gWwA rkfd eq>s ckj&ckj dUukSt tkdj tyhy u gksuk iM+sA vHkh rd fdlh Hkh ftykf/kdkjh@eq0fo0vf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk bl rjg eq>s bl rjg ls tyhy ugha fd;k x;k vkSj lHkh mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa us esjs dk;Z dh ljkguk dhA lknj pj.k Li'kZ ds lkFk eq>s {kek djus dh d`ik djsaA" mudk dFku gS fd bl lqlkbM uksV ds ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd ds fo:) nwljh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h rFkk mldh foospuk ds i'pkr vkosnd ds fo:) vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k] blfy, vkosnd ds fo:) yfEcr mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk ifj'khyu fd;kA vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fd, x, lHkh rF; fookfnr iz'u ls lacaf/kr gSa] fdlh O;fDr ds fo:) rych vkns'k ;k izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds Lrj ij dsoy ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd eqyfteku ds f[kykQ izFke n`"V;k dksbZ ekeyk curk gS ;k ugha] ftl ij /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds rgr fu.kZ; ugha fy;k tk ldrkA bl Lrj ij dsoy izFke n`"V;k ekeyk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 ds ekeyksa esa fu/kkZfjr dkuwu ds vkyksd esa ns[kk tkuk gSA bl Lrj ij vfHk;qDr ds fookfnr cpko ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2021 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh decided on 30.07.2021 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd %& "Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation."
rn~uqlkj vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk mijksDr okn ls lacaf/kr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus dh izkFkZuk vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ;g vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA fn0 % 26&7&2022 ds0lh0flag