High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141254 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30228 of 2025 Applicant :- Shafeeq - Ui - Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajaj Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
the entire fund and therefore, prima facie offences under sections 407, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act are made out against the applicant. 13. He further submits that if the proceedings of co-accused Sanjay Tyagi in different case has been stayed then also applicant cannot be benefited. He next submits, even Sanjay Tyagi was the public servant and his sanction order was stayed and therefore case of applicant is distinguishable from him. He further submits, as from the entire material available on record it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, Investigating Officer rightly submitted charge sheet against the applicant and court concerned rightly took the cognizance. 14. He next urged, therefore, instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. Analysis:- 15. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and three others with the allegation that they misappropriated the scholarship amount of students and applicant was principal in the Madarsa, therefore, allegations levelled against the applicant are quite serious. 17. Further, during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of number of persons and after investigation it was found that applicant without any physical and documentary verification distributed the scholarship with the connivance of other co-accused, who were public servants and therefore, prima facie it can not be said that applicant did not commit any offence. 18. Further, however from page 113 of the paper book it reflects that on 23.4.2024 proceeding with regard to one accused Sanjay Tyagi has been stayed by this Court in other case but proceeding of co-accused Sanjay Tyagi with regard to the present case has not been stayed by this Court. Further, even from the order dated 23.4.2024 passed by this Court it reflects that the proceeding with regard to the accused Sanjay Tyagi has been stayed by Co- 4 NA528 No. 30228 of 2025 ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he was public servant and sanction order passed against him has stayed. Therefore, on this ground applicant cannot get any benefit in the present case as there is no issue of sanction in the case of applicant. 19. Law is settled, proceedings pending against an accused and charge sheet filed against him can be quashed at initial stage only in rare and rarest cases if from the material available on record prima facie no offence is made out against him. 20. In case at hand, from the material available on record, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. 21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajaj Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as impugned charge sheet dated 21.1.2025 and the impugned summoning order dated 4.3.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No.1 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, in Sessions Case No. 431 of 2025, Case Crime No. 20 of 2019 under Sections 409,420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station E.O.W., District Meerut, during pendency of the instant case. Brief facts of the case: 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.7.2019 against the applicant and three others and according to the FIR applicant was principal in Madarsa and he along with other accused misappropriated the scholarship amount of the students and without any physical and documentary verification scholarship amount have been distributed. 4. After registration of the FIR investigation was commenced and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and thereafter court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to him. Hence, the instant application. Argument advanced on behalf of the applicant: 2 NA528 No. 30228 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant, who was principal in Madarsa has been made accused along with public servants. 6. He next submits that from the record it reflects that co-accused Smt. Suman Gautam was the then District Minority Welfare Officer and Sanjay Tyagi was the then Clerk in office of the District Minority Welfare Officer and scholarship was distributed in their guidance on their instructions. 7. He next submits that with regard to the similar allegations several FIRs were lodged and after judicial interference all the FIRs have been consolidated and as co-accused Sanjay Tyagi was public servant and therefore, when charge sheet was filed against him in case relates to case crime no. 136 of 2016 then this Court was pleased to stay the proceedings pending against him in that case on the ground that sanction order passed against him has been stayed. 8. He further submits that as with regard to accused no. 2 Sanjay Tyagi proceeding has been stayed by this Court though in different case crime number therefore,proceeding pending against the applicant should also be at least stayed. 9. He further submits that even from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant committed any offence. 10. He further submits that therefore, charge sheet filed against applicant and cognizance order passed in the present matter both are bad and are liable to be quashed. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State: 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant was principal in Madarsa and therefore, it cannot be said that he did not commit any offence. 12. He further submits that during investigation when Investigating Officer collected the evidence then it was found that applicant and other co-accused with intention to misappropriate the scholarship amount of students distributed the same without any verification and thus they misappropriated 3 NA528 No. 30228 of 2025