High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 06.07.2012 and impugned chargesheet as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1099 of 2013, Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011, under Sections 409, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Hardoi. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was posted in Block Office, Sandila, District Hardoi, as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year, 2010 and thereafter he was given the charge of Swarn Jayanti Swarojgar Yojna (SGSY) in Block Sandila. He submits that the applicant on 26th of December, 2011 submitted an application before opposite party no. 2 i.e. the then Block Development Officer, Sandila, while stating that misappropriation of government fund in SGSY Yojna has been committed by one Brij Kishore Pandey, the Assistant Accountant and on his application, Brij Kishore Pandey was placed under suspension on 29th of December, 2011. He further submits that an FIR was also lodged against Mr. Brij Kishore Pandey under Sections 409, 467, 471 of IPC at Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, as bearing Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011. He added that opposite party no.2/complainant sent a report to the District Development Officer on 21st of March, 2012, while mentioning that the applicant is not the guilty of any misappropriation of government fund and a request was also made that the suspension order of the present applicant dated 29th of December, 2011 may be removed, as by then the present applicant was also placed under suspension. He next added that on 23rd of March, 2012, the applicant was reinstated in service, while considering that the misappropriation of public fund is not committed by the present applicant, rather it was done by one Brij Kishore Pandey, Assistant Accountant. He submits that the Investigating Officer without any cogent piece of evidence, has also found that the applicant is involved in committing offence and, therefore, chargesheet has also been filed against him, including Brij Kishore Pandey and, thereafter the learned trial court, without application of mind, has summoned the applicant and by way of present application, the summoning order as well as chargesheet are under challenge. It is argued that at the same time, a departmental enquiry was also contemplated, wherein one Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment), District Hardoi was inducted as an Inquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 17.07.2014, which is appended as SA-1 alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 26th of January, 2021. He next added that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found that the applicant is not involved in committing offence, whereafter the disciplinary authority has considered the aforesaid enquiry report and passed an order on 22nd of May, 2019, which is appended as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit and wherein he was exonerated. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the misappropriation of public fund has, admittedly, been done by Brij Kishore Pandey and subsequently Brij Kishore Pandey had also deposited certain amount in lieu of alleged misappropriated public fund and, therefore, the offence, if any, is committed by Brij Kishore Pandey not by the applicant. He submits that in fact there is no evidence against the applicant that he has ever committed any offence and the Investigating Officer, without any evidence, has filed the chargesheet and the applicant has been thrown to suffer. He submits that the summoning order is evident that the learned trial court has not applied its mind and passed the order which is under challenge in this application. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel submits that there is no evidence against the applicant and that too is also apparent from the disciplinary proceeding concluded by the disciplinary authority, as he has exonerated the applicant, as he was not involved in committing any misappropriation of public fund though the allegation against the applicant in the FIR is regarding misappropriation of the public fund. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed. On the other hand, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA-I has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has drawn attention towards suspension order and submitted that applicant, prima facie, found involved in committing offence and, as such, he was placed under suspension and the enquiry was also contemplated against him, though he has failed to contradict the fact that the departmental enquiry has been concluded and the applicant has been exonerated. He further submits that the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation found that the applicant was involved in committing misappropriation of public fund and, therefore, chargesheet was filed and, thus, the applicant may contend his case before the learned trial court and if this Hon'ble Court would intervene at this stage, the same would amount to mini trial. Therefore, submission is that the present application is liable to be dismissed. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the main allegation against the applicant was that he was involved in committing misappropriation of the public fund of SGSY Yojna. The fact remains that Brij Kishore Pandey was dealing with SGSY Yojna and he admitted his guilt, while writing a letter dated 27.12.2011, appended as Annexure No. 7 to the application. Further, the present applicant was placed under suspension and an enquiry was contemplated for the charge that he was involved in committing misappropriation of public fund and after thorough enquiry, it was found that the applicant was not involved in committing such misappropriation and thereafter the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22nd of May, 2019, exonerated the applicant from all the charges and the disciplinary proceeding was concluded. It is not understandable that on what evidence, the Investigating Officer has filed the chargesheet. This Court finds that if the present applicant is put to trial would amount to harassment and, thus, this Court finds it a fit case where the criminal proceeding cannot allow to proceed, as the same would be abuse of process of law. Consequently, criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1099 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011, under Sections 409, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Hardoi, so far as the present applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 3.4.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 06.07.2012 and impugned chargesheet as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1099 of 2013, Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011, under Sections 409, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Hardoi. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was posted in Block Office, Sandila, District Hardoi, as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year, 2010 and thereafter he was given the charge of Swarn Jayanti Swarojgar Yojna (SGSY) in Block Sandila. He submits that the applicant on 26th of December, 2011 submitted an application before opposite party no. 2 i.e. the then Block Development Officer, Sandila, while stating that misappropriation of government fund in SGSY Yojna has been committed by one Brij Kishore Pandey, the Assistant Accountant and on his application, Brij Kishore Pandey was placed under suspension on 29th of December, 2011. He further submits that an FIR was also lodged against Mr. Brij Kishore Pandey under Sections 409, 467, 471 of IPC at Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, as bearing Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011. He added that opposite party no.2/complainant sent a report to the District Development Officer on 21st of March, 2012, while mentioning that the applicant is not the guilty of any misappropriation of government fund and a request was also made that the suspension order of the present applicant dated 29th of December, 2011 may be removed, as by then the present applicant was also placed under suspension. He next added that on 23rd of March, 2012, the applicant was reinstated in service, while considering that the misappropriation of public fund is not committed by the present applicant, rather it was done by one Brij Kishore Pandey, Assistant Accountant. He submits that the Investigating Officer without any cogent piece of evidence, has also found that the applicant is involved in committing offence and, therefore, chargesheet has also been filed against him, including Brij Kishore Pandey and, thereafter the learned trial court, without application of mind, has summoned the applicant and by way of present application, the summoning order as well as chargesheet are under challenge. It is argued that at the same time, a departmental enquiry was also contemplated, wherein one Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Deputy Commissioner (Labour Employment), District Hardoi was inducted as an Inquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 17.07.2014, which is appended as SA-1 alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 26th of January, 2021. He next added that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found that the applicant is not involved in committing offence, whereafter the disciplinary authority has considered the aforesaid enquiry report and passed an order on 22nd of May, 2019, which is appended as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit and wherein he was exonerated. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the misappropriation of public fund has, admittedly, been done by Brij Kishore Pandey and subsequently Brij Kishore Pandey had also deposited certain amount in lieu of alleged misappropriated public fund and, therefore, the offence, if any, is committed by Brij Kishore Pandey not by the applicant. He submits that in fact there is no evidence against the applicant that he has ever committed any offence and the Investigating Officer, without any evidence, has filed the chargesheet and the applicant has been thrown to suffer. He submits that the summoning order is evident that the learned trial court has not applied its mind and passed the order which is under challenge in this application. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel submits that there is no evidence against the applicant and that too is also apparent from the disciplinary proceeding concluded by the disciplinary authority, as he has exonerated the applicant, as he was not involved in committing any misappropriation of public fund though the allegation against the applicant in the FIR is regarding misappropriation of the public fund. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed. On the other hand, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA-I has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has drawn attention towards suspension order and submitted that applicant, prima facie, found involved in committing offence and, as such, he was placed under suspension and the enquiry was also contemplated against him, though he has failed to contradict the fact that the departmental enquiry has been concluded and the applicant has been exonerated. He further submits that the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation found that the applicant was involved in committing misappropriation of public fund and, therefore, chargesheet was filed and, thus, the applicant may contend his case before the learned trial court and if this Hon'ble Court would intervene at this stage, the same would amount to mini trial. Therefore, submission is that the present application is liable to be dismissed. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the main allegation against the applicant was that he was involved in committing misappropriation of the public fund of SGSY Yojna. The fact remains that Brij Kishore Pandey was dealing with SGSY Yojna and he admitted his guilt, while writing a letter dated 27.12.2011, appended as Annexure No. 7 to the application. Further, the present applicant was placed under suspension and an enquiry was contemplated for the charge that he was involved in committing misappropriation of public fund and after thorough enquiry, it was found that the applicant was not involved in committing such misappropriation and thereafter the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22nd of May, 2019, exonerated the applicant from all the charges and the disciplinary proceeding was concluded. It is not understandable that on what evidence, the Investigating Officer has filed the chargesheet. This Court finds that if the present applicant is put to trial would amount to harassment and, thus, this Court finds it a fit case where the criminal proceeding cannot allow to proceed, as the same would be abuse of process of law. Consequently, criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1099 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1068 of 2011, under Sections 409, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Hardoi, so far as the present applicant is concerned, are hereby quashed. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 3.4.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench