Shiv Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 by Shri Gulam Rabbani is also taken on record.

3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner was given an option of withdrawing the petition in order to pursue other remedy as may be available to the petitioner but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the Court should go into the merits of the matter and decide the same.

4. Accordingly, on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has decided to go through the matter on merits.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4

6. Under challenge is the F.I.R. dated 12.11.2025 bearing F.I.R. / Case Crime No.0140 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mawai, District- Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R.

7. From a perusal of the F.I.R., it emerges that the petitioner, while acting in the capacity of being a Pradhan, has not made the payment to whom the said payment was to be made rather, on the basis of fake and fabricated vouchers, the payment has been made to a third party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the grounds that 2 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 the aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged in a most malicious manner inasmuch as (a) the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after a period of almost five year; (b) no complaint has been made by the person to whom the payment was not made and consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the said F.I.R. to have been lodged at the instance of a third party; and (c) one Ravindra Kumar Verma, the then Assistant Development Officer, asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied by the petitioner, therefore, a false report was prepared by Rajnish Verma, who was the then Village Development Officer, on the behest of aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Verma who was arrested on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by In-charge Trap Team. The copy of the F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition.

9. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has argued that an inquiry had duly been conducted by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya who submitted a report dated 05.10.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 wherein the conduct of the petitioner having made the fictitious payment has emerged.

11. Reliance has also been placed on the report of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit, to indicate that although, after construction had been got made by the petitioner along with another person, the payments were to be made to M/s Santram Traders and M/s Aman Enterprises yet the payments have been made on the basis of fictitious vouchers to M/s Sanjay Traders and M/s Khan Traders and thus, the erstwhile Pradhan i.e. the petitioner along with the erstwhile Gram Vikas Adhikari, Ayodhya Shri Amit Gupta have been found guilty and thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged.

12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. for having made the fictitious payments apart from the other irregularities as indicated in the said F.I.R.

13. Considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would amount to holding a mini trial which has been restrained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of cases. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the 3 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on

22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial." (emphasis by the Court)

14. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR.

15. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

16. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others- (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that while examining of FIR quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

17. From a perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the petitioner along with others have indulged in an incident. The petitioner has also been specifically named in the incident and the F.I.R. as well.

18. The grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if are to be considered by this Court, would primarily amount to holding 4 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 of a mini trial and an inquiry which has specifically been restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh (supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra) inasmuch as the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the credibility of the witnesses etc cannot be seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.

19. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted to go through the merits of the matter also, as such, the Court now proceeds to consider the merits of the case.

20. The lodging of the F.I.R. is duly supported by the inquiry as made by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya dated 11.07.2025 as well as by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya dated 05.10.2025.

21. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 11.07.2025 is reproduced below: ्ऺेषक, िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या। सेवा म(cid:517), उप िनदेशक (पंचायत). अयो(cid:280)या म(cid:276)डल, अयो(cid:280)या। पं(cid:347)ांक 1437/7-पं०/(cid:293)था०/IGRS / िन(cid:293)तारण/बीबीपुर-मवई/2025-26 िदनांक 11/07/2025 महोदय, कृ पया ऑनलाइन स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) सं(cid:263)या-40017725033010 िदनांक 11.06.2025 का अवलोकन करने का क(cid:504) कर(cid:517), िजसके मा(cid:280)यम से (cid:361)ीमती खुशनुमा बानो प(cid:277)नी (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बसात अहमद (पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान), िनवासी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर िवकास ख(cid:276)ड मवई, अयो(cid:280)या ने त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ांम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ी रजनीश वमा(cid:259) की िनगरानी म(cid:517) पंचायत भवन की छत (cid:293)तर के काय(cid:259) म(cid:517) शटिरग, सिरया आिद का काय(cid:259) कराया था, िजसका भुगतान अभी तक वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं सिचव (cid:497)ारा नह(cid:514) िकया गया है। (cid:361)ी बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) का भुगतान कराये जाने के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) िशकायत की गयी है। उ(cid:472) ्ऺकरण म(cid:517) सादर अवगत कराना है िक अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई को स(cid:281)दिभत ्ऺकरण की जांच कर जांच आ(cid:263)या उपल(cid:284)ध कराने का िनद(cid:518)श िदया गया। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई ने अपने प(cid:347) सं0-230 िदनांक 10.07.2025 (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया िक उपरो(cid:472) िशकायत की जांच हेतु इस काया(cid:259)लय के प(cid:347) सं०-1082 िदनांक 20.10.2022 के कम म(cid:517) (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर म(cid:517) िनमा(cid:259)ण कराये गये पंचायत भवन/सामुदाियक शौचालय की पूण(cid:259) प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु वत(cid:259)मान सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर को प(cid:347) ्ऺेिषत िकया गया। (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:497)ारा उपरो(cid:472) काय(cid:525) की प(cid:347)ावली काया(cid:259)लय म(cid:517) ्ऺ(cid:293)तुत की गयी, प(cid:347)ावली ्ऺा(cid:282)त होने के उपरा(cid:281)त अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत म(cid:517) जाकर वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एवं पूव(cid:259) ्ऺधान पित एवं (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव की उपि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) ्ऺकरण की जांच की गयी। जांच के समय पूव(cid:259) 5 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 ्ऺधान पित (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया गया िक पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर तक का िनमा(cid:259)ण काय(cid:259) उनके (cid:497)ारा कराया गया था, िजस पर वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:497)ारा इसकी पुि(cid:504) भी की गयी। प(cid:347)ावली अवलोकन करने पर यह त(cid:278)य ्ऺकाश म(cid:517) आया िक पूव(cid:259) (cid:352)धान खुशनुमा बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत िबल वाऊचर िशकायती प(cid:347) म(cid:517) मेमस(cid:259) संतराम (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर 109976.00 (cid:628)पय(cid:517) एवं मेमस(cid:259) अमन इ(cid:276)टर(cid:352)ाइजेज पर मु० 5560.00 (cid:628)पय(cid:517) कु ल योग मु0- 165576.00 (cid:628)पये के िबल भुगतान करने के िलए संल(cid:264)न िकया है। िक(cid:281)तु उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) का भुगतान वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:497)ारा मेसस(cid:259) खान (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर (cid:332)मशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एवं 24840.00 कु ल योग-55600.00 एवं मेसस(cid:259) संजय (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु0-165576,000 (cid:628)पये कर िदया गया है। िजसके िलए वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एवं त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ाम िवकास अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या (cid:361)ी अिमत गु(cid:282)ता दोषी ह(cid:520)। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मबई की जांच आ(cid:263)या के आधार पर स(cid:281)दिभत ्ऺकरण म(cid:517) िजलािधकारी महोदय के (cid:293)तर से ्ऺारि(cid:286)भक जांच संि(cid:293)थत करने हेतु िनयमानुसार अ(cid:334)ेतर काय(cid:259)वाही ्ऺि(cid:332)याधीन है। उ(cid:472)ानुसार िशकायतकता(cid:259) को उनके (cid:622)रभाष नं० पर अवगत करा िदया गया है। अतः महोदय से अनुरोध है िक ऑनलाइन स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) सं(cid:263)या-40017725033010 िदनांक 11.06.2025 पर अंिकत ्ऺकरण िन(cid:87)ेिपत करने का क(cid:504) कर(cid:517)। भवदीय िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी,z अयो(cid:280)या। प(cid:347)ांक /उ(cid:472) िदनांिकत। ्ऺितिलिपः- (cid:361)ीमती खुशनुमा बानो प(cid:277)नी (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बसात अहमद, िनवासी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर िवकास ख(cid:276)ड मवई, अयो(cid:280)या को सूचनाथ(cid:259) ्ऺेिषत। िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या।

22. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 05.10.2025 is reproduced below: ्ऺेषक, सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई अयो(cid:280)या। सेवा म(cid:517), िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी अयो(cid:280)या। प(cid:347)ांक 230/आनलाइन िशकायत सवंभ(cid:259) / 2025-26 िदनांक-05-10-2025 महोदय, 6 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 कृ पया आनलाइन िशकायत सं(cid:263)या 40017725055986 िदनांक 20.09.2025 पर दज(cid:259) ्ऺा(cid:282)त िशकायती ्ऺाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) म(cid:517) िवकास ख(cid:276)ड की (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे नविनिमत पंचायत भवन के भुगतान मु० 165576.00 (cid:628)0 की िशकायत पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान बीबीपुर के पित (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बशात अहमद पु(cid:347) मो० उमर ने त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:361)ी रजनीश वमा(cid:259) की िनगरानी मे (पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर म(cid:517) सिरया, सटिरग इ(cid:277)यािद) का काय(cid:259) कराया गया, पर(cid:281)तु अभी तक भुगतान नह(cid:514) िकया गया है। उपरो(cid:472) िशकायत की जाँच हेतु इस काया(cid:259)लय प(cid:347) सं(cid:263)या 1082 िदनांक- 20.10.2022 के (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे िनमा(cid:259)ण कराये गये पंचायत भवन / सामुदाियक शौचालय की पूण(cid:259) प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु वत(cid:259)मान संिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर को प(cid:347) िनग(cid:259)त कर पंचायत भवन िनमा(cid:259)ण से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु िनद(cid:518)िशत िकया गया। (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:497)ारा उपरो(cid:472) काय(cid:525) की पं(cid:347)ावली काया(cid:259)लय मे ्ऺ(cid:293)तुत की गयी, पं(cid:347)ावली ्ऺा(cid:282)त होने के उपरा(cid:281)त अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत म(cid:517) जाकर वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एव पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान पित एं व (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव की उपि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) ्ऺकरण की जाँच की गयी, जाँच के समय पूव(cid:259) ्ऺधान (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया िक पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर तक का िनमा(cid:259)ण काय(cid:259) उनके (cid:497)ारा कराया गया था, िजस पर वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:497)ारा इसकी पुि(cid:504) भी की गयी। प(cid:347)ावली अवलोकन करने पर यह त(cid:278)य ्ऺकाश म(cid:517) आया िक पूव(cid:259) (cid:352)धान खुशनुमा बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत िबल वाउचर िशकायती प(cid:347) मे मेसस(cid:259) संतराम टेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये एं व मेसस(cid:259) अमन इ(cid:282)टर(cid:352)ाइजेज पर मु० 55600.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु० 165576.00 (cid:628)पये के िबल भुगतान करने के िलये संल(cid:264)न िकया गया है। िक(cid:281)तु उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) का भुगतान वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:497)ारा मेसस(cid:259) खान टेडस(cid:259) पर कमशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एं व 24840.00 (cid:628) 0 कु ल योग 55600.00 (cid:627)० एं व मेसस(cid:259) संजय टेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु0 165576.00 (cid:628)0 कर िदया गया है। िजसके िलये वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ाम िवकास अिधकारी (cid:361)ी अिमत गु(cid:282)ता दोषी है। अतः जाँच आ(cid:263)या आपकी सेवा मे आव(cid:291)यक काय(cid:259)वाही हेतु सादर ्ऺेिषत है। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई-अयो(cid:280)या। 23. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it thus emerges that the petitioner along with another person have been found guilty of having forged the documents and having made the payments, which were due to certain other persons, to a third party. Once the aforesaid reports have not been challenged obviously there cannot be any occasion for challenging the impugned F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of those reports. Once the offence as committed by the petitioner is clearly apparent, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned F.I.R.

24. The grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is found to be patently misconceived considering the fact that the F.I.R. itself indicates that various efforts had been made by the complainant before the higher authorities regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner but to no avail which, thus, constrained the complainant to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023). Thus, the said ground is rejected.

25. So far as the ground that no complaint had been made by the person to whom the payment was not made, the said ground is also misconceived inasmuch as once from the reports, as have been 7 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 submitted by the competent officers i.e. the Assistant Developement Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya on 05.10.2025 & 11.07.2025 respectively, the fabrication of the documents made by the petitioner are clearly made out and in case the persons to whom the payment was not made has not come forward, the same cannot absolve the petitioner of the irregularities and the fabrication of the documents as has been done by him. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

26. As regards the ground that the then A.D.O. had asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied, the same cannot be considered to be a vaild ground for quashing the F.I.R. inasmuch as it was always open for the petitioner to have submitted a complaint in this regard to the competent authority regarding the alleged demand of bribe by the officer. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

27. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the impugned F.I.R. is made out.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 25, 2025 S. Shivhare (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 by Shri Gulam Rabbani is also taken on record.

3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner was given an option of withdrawing the petition in order to pursue other remedy as may be available to the petitioner but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the Court should go into the merits of the matter and decide the same.

4. Accordingly, on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has decided to go through the matter on merits.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4

6. Under challenge is the F.I.R. dated 12.11.2025 bearing F.I.R. / Case Crime No.0140 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mawai, District- Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R.

7. From a perusal of the F.I.R., it emerges that the petitioner, while acting in the capacity of being a Pradhan, has not made the payment to whom the said payment was to be made rather, on the basis of fake and fabricated vouchers, the payment has been made to a third party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the grounds that 2 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 the aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged in a most malicious manner inasmuch as (a) the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after a period of almost five year; (b) no complaint has been made by the person to whom the payment was not made and consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the said F.I.R. to have been lodged at the instance of a third party; and (c) one Ravindra Kumar Verma, the then Assistant Development Officer, asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied by the petitioner, therefore, a false report was prepared by Rajnish Verma, who was the then Village Development Officer, on the behest of aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Verma who was arrested on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by In-charge Trap Team. The copy of the F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition.

9. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has argued that an inquiry had duly been conducted by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya who submitted a report dated 05.10.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 wherein the conduct of the petitioner having made the fictitious payment has emerged.

11. Reliance has also been placed on the report of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit, to indicate that although, after construction had been got made by the petitioner along with another person, the payments were to be made to M/s Santram Traders and M/s Aman Enterprises yet the payments have been made on the basis of fictitious vouchers to M/s Sanjay Traders and M/s Khan Traders and thus, the erstwhile Pradhan i.e. the petitioner along with the erstwhile Gram Vikas Adhikari, Ayodhya Shri Amit Gupta have been found guilty and thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged.

12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. for having made the fictitious payments apart from the other irregularities as indicated in the said F.I.R.

13. Considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would amount to holding a mini trial which has been restrained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of cases. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the 3 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on

22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial." (emphasis by the Court)

14. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR.

15. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

16. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others- (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that while examining of FIR quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

17. From a perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the petitioner along with others have indulged in an incident. The petitioner has also been specifically named in the incident and the F.I.R. as well.

18. The grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if are to be considered by this Court, would primarily amount to holding 4 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 of a mini trial and an inquiry which has specifically been restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh (supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra) inasmuch as the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the credibility of the witnesses etc cannot be seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.

19. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted to go through the merits of the matter also, as such, the Court now proceeds to consider the merits of the case.

20. The lodging of the F.I.R. is duly supported by the inquiry as made by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya dated 11.07.2025 as well as by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya dated 05.10.2025.

21. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 11.07.2025 is reproduced below: ्ऺेषक, िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या। सेवा म(cid:517), उप िनदेशक (पंचायत). अयो(cid:280)या म(cid:276)डल, अयो(cid:280)या। पं(cid:347)ांक 1437/7-पं०/(cid:293)था०/IGRS / िन(cid:293)तारण/बीबीपुर-मवई/2025-26 िदनांक 11/07/2025 महोदय, कृ पया ऑनलाइन स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) सं(cid:263)या-40017725033010 िदनांक 11.06.2025 का अवलोकन करने का क(cid:504) कर(cid:517), िजसके मा(cid:280)यम से (cid:361)ीमती खुशनुमा बानो प(cid:277)नी (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बसात अहमद (पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान), िनवासी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर िवकास ख(cid:276)ड मवई, अयो(cid:280)या ने त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ांम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ी रजनीश वमा(cid:259) की िनगरानी म(cid:517) पंचायत भवन की छत (cid:293)तर के काय(cid:259) म(cid:517) शटिरग, सिरया आिद का काय(cid:259) कराया था, िजसका भुगतान अभी तक वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं सिचव (cid:497)ारा नह(cid:514) िकया गया है। (cid:361)ी बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) का भुगतान कराये जाने के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) िशकायत की गयी है। उ(cid:472) ्ऺकरण म(cid:517) सादर अवगत कराना है िक अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई को स(cid:281)दिभत ्ऺकरण की जांच कर जांच आ(cid:263)या उपल(cid:284)ध कराने का िनद(cid:518)श िदया गया। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई ने अपने प(cid:347) सं0-230 िदनांक 10.07.2025 (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया िक उपरो(cid:472) िशकायत की जांच हेतु इस काया(cid:259)लय के प(cid:347) सं०-1082 िदनांक 20.10.2022 के कम म(cid:517) (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर म(cid:517) िनमा(cid:259)ण कराये गये पंचायत भवन/सामुदाियक शौचालय की पूण(cid:259) प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु वत(cid:259)मान सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर को प(cid:347) ्ऺेिषत िकया गया। (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:497)ारा उपरो(cid:472) काय(cid:525) की प(cid:347)ावली काया(cid:259)लय म(cid:517) ्ऺ(cid:293)तुत की गयी, प(cid:347)ावली ्ऺा(cid:282)त होने के उपरा(cid:281)त अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत म(cid:517) जाकर वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एवं पूव(cid:259) ्ऺधान पित एवं (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव की उपि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) ्ऺकरण की जांच की गयी। जांच के समय पूव(cid:259) 5 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 ्ऺधान पित (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया गया िक पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर तक का िनमा(cid:259)ण काय(cid:259) उनके (cid:497)ारा कराया गया था, िजस पर वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:497)ारा इसकी पुि(cid:504) भी की गयी। प(cid:347)ावली अवलोकन करने पर यह त(cid:278)य ्ऺकाश म(cid:517) आया िक पूव(cid:259) (cid:352)धान खुशनुमा बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत िबल वाऊचर िशकायती प(cid:347) म(cid:517) मेमस(cid:259) संतराम (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर 109976.00 (cid:628)पय(cid:517) एवं मेमस(cid:259) अमन इ(cid:276)टर(cid:352)ाइजेज पर मु० 5560.00 (cid:628)पय(cid:517) कु ल योग मु0- 165576.00 (cid:628)पये के िबल भुगतान करने के िलए संल(cid:264)न िकया है। िक(cid:281)तु उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) का भुगतान वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एवं त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:497)ारा मेसस(cid:259) खान (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर (cid:332)मशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एवं 24840.00 कु ल योग-55600.00 एवं मेसस(cid:259) संजय (cid:342)ेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु0-165576,000 (cid:628)पये कर िदया गया है। िजसके िलए वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एवं त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ाम िवकास अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या (cid:361)ी अिमत गु(cid:282)ता दोषी ह(cid:520)। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मबई की जांच आ(cid:263)या के आधार पर स(cid:281)दिभत ्ऺकरण म(cid:517) िजलािधकारी महोदय के (cid:293)तर से ्ऺारि(cid:286)भक जांच संि(cid:293)थत करने हेतु िनयमानुसार अ(cid:334)ेतर काय(cid:259)वाही ्ऺि(cid:332)याधीन है। उ(cid:472)ानुसार िशकायतकता(cid:259) को उनके (cid:622)रभाष नं० पर अवगत करा िदया गया है। अतः महोदय से अनुरोध है िक ऑनलाइन स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) सं(cid:263)या-40017725033010 िदनांक 11.06.2025 पर अंिकत ्ऺकरण िन(cid:87)ेिपत करने का क(cid:504) कर(cid:517)। भवदीय िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी,z अयो(cid:280)या। प(cid:347)ांक /उ(cid:472) िदनांिकत। ्ऺितिलिपः- (cid:361)ीमती खुशनुमा बानो प(cid:277)नी (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बसात अहमद, िनवासी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर िवकास ख(cid:276)ड मवई, अयो(cid:280)या को सूचनाथ(cid:259) ्ऺेिषत। िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी, अयो(cid:280)या।

22. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 05.10.2025 is reproduced below: ्ऺेषक, सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई अयो(cid:280)या। सेवा म(cid:517), िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी अयो(cid:280)या। प(cid:347)ांक 230/आनलाइन िशकायत सवंभ(cid:259) / 2025-26 िदनांक-05-10-2025 महोदय, 6 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 कृ पया आनलाइन िशकायत सं(cid:263)या 40017725055986 िदनांक 20.09.2025 पर दज(cid:259) ्ऺा(cid:282)त िशकायती ्ऺाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) म(cid:517) िवकास ख(cid:276)ड की (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे नविनिमत पंचायत भवन के भुगतान मु० 165576.00 (cid:628)0 की िशकायत पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान बीबीपुर के पित (cid:361)ी इि(cid:286)बशात अहमद पु(cid:347) मो० उमर ने त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:361)ी रजनीश वमा(cid:259) की िनगरानी मे (पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर म(cid:517) सिरया, सटिरग इ(cid:277)यािद) का काय(cid:259) कराया गया, पर(cid:281)तु अभी तक भुगतान नह(cid:514) िकया गया है। उपरो(cid:472) िशकायत की जाँच हेतु इस काया(cid:259)लय प(cid:347) सं(cid:263)या 1082 िदनांक- 20.10.2022 के (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे िनमा(cid:259)ण कराये गये पंचायत भवन / सामुदाियक शौचालय की पूण(cid:259) प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु वत(cid:259)मान संिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत बीबीपुर को प(cid:347) िनग(cid:259)त कर पंचायत भवन िनमा(cid:259)ण से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत प(cid:347)ावली उपल(cid:284)ध कराये जाने हेतु िनद(cid:518)िशत िकया गया। (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:497)ारा उपरो(cid:472) काय(cid:525) की पं(cid:347)ावली काया(cid:259)लय मे ्ऺ(cid:293)तुत की गयी, पं(cid:347)ावली ्ऺा(cid:282)त होने के उपरा(cid:281)त अधोह(cid:293)ता(cid:87)री (cid:497)ारा (cid:334)ाम पंचायत म(cid:517) जाकर वत(cid:259)मान ्ऺधान एव पूव(cid:259) (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान पित एं व (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव की उपि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) ्ऺकरण की जाँच की गयी, जाँच के समय पूव(cid:259) ्ऺधान (cid:497)ारा अवगत कराया िक पंचायत भवन के छत (cid:293)तर तक का िनमा(cid:259)ण काय(cid:259) उनके (cid:497)ारा कराया गया था, िजस पर वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व (cid:334)ाम पंचायत सिचव (cid:361)ीमती लिलता देवी (cid:497)ारा इसकी पुि(cid:504) भी की गयी। प(cid:347)ावली अवलोकन करने पर यह त(cid:278)य ्ऺकाश म(cid:517) आया िक पूव(cid:259) (cid:352)धान खुशनुमा बानो (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) से स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत िबल वाउचर िशकायती प(cid:347) मे मेसस(cid:259) संतराम टेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये एं व मेसस(cid:259) अमन इ(cid:282)टर(cid:352)ाइजेज पर मु० 55600.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु० 165576.00 (cid:628)पये के िबल भुगतान करने के िलये संल(cid:264)न िकया गया है। िक(cid:281)तु उ(cid:472) काय(cid:259) का भुगतान वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व त(cid:277)कालीन सिचव (cid:497)ारा मेसस(cid:259) खान टेडस(cid:259) पर कमशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एं व 24840.00 (cid:628) 0 कु ल योग 55600.00 (cid:627)० एं व मेसस(cid:259) संजय टेडस(cid:259) पर मु० 109976.00 (cid:628)पये कु ल योग मु0 165576.00 (cid:628)0 कर िदया गया है। िजसके िलये वत(cid:259)मान (cid:334)ाम ्ऺधान एं व त(cid:277)कालीन (cid:334)ाम िवकास अिधकारी (cid:361)ी अिमत गु(cid:282)ता दोषी है। अतः जाँच आ(cid:263)या आपकी सेवा मे आव(cid:291)यक काय(cid:259)वाही हेतु सादर ्ऺेिषत है। सहायक िवकास अिधकारी (पं०) मवई-अयो(cid:280)या। 23. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it thus emerges that the petitioner along with another person have been found guilty of having forged the documents and having made the payments, which were due to certain other persons, to a third party. Once the aforesaid reports have not been challenged obviously there cannot be any occasion for challenging the impugned F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of those reports. Once the offence as committed by the petitioner is clearly apparent, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned F.I.R.

24. The grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is found to be patently misconceived considering the fact that the F.I.R. itself indicates that various efforts had been made by the complainant before the higher authorities regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner but to no avail which, thus, constrained the complainant to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023). Thus, the said ground is rejected.

25. So far as the ground that no complaint had been made by the person to whom the payment was not made, the said ground is also misconceived inasmuch as once from the reports, as have been 7 CRLP No. 11117 of 2025 submitted by the competent officers i.e. the Assistant Developement Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya on 05.10.2025 & 11.07.2025 respectively, the fabrication of the documents made by the petitioner are clearly made out and in case the persons to whom the payment was not made has not come forward, the same cannot absolve the petitioner of the irregularities and the fabrication of the documents as has been done by him. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

26. As regards the ground that the then A.D.O. had asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied, the same cannot be considered to be a vaild ground for quashing the F.I.R. inasmuch as it was always open for the petitioner to have submitted a complaint in this regard to the competent authority regarding the alleged demand of bribe by the officer. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

27. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the impugned F.I.R. is made out.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 25, 2025 S. Shivhare (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench