Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry Does Not Preclude Criminal Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court emphasizes thorough investigation into fraud allegations against Senior Assistant Clerk Suresh Kumar Mishra.

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR against Suresh Kumar Mishra, a Senior Assistant Clerk, implicated in a massive fraud and forgery case. The bench, comprising Justices Siddharth and Vinod Diwakar, underscored the need for an extensive investigation into the allegations of fraudulent issuance of challan receipts, causing substantial losses to the government treasury.

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Mishra, was implicated in an FIR registered on April 27, 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC. The allegations involved Mishra, in collusion with ARTO officials, fraudulently issuing challan receipts for vehicle releases. Mishra, who worked in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra, was accused of releasing 304 vehicles against forged receipts, resulting in significant financial losses to the government. Despite being exonerated in a departmental inquiry, Mishra sought the quashing of the FIR on grounds of malicious prosecution and lack of incriminating evidence.

The Court emphasized the distinction between departmental exoneration and criminal proceedings, stating, “Exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not preclude criminal proceedings. Different standards of proof apply in disciplinary and criminal matters.” The Court noted the ongoing investigation had revealed substantial evidence against Mishra and other co-accused, necessitating a comprehensive investigation.

Justice Vinod Diwakar highlighted the detailed accusations against Mishra and his associates, stating, “The roles of multiple individuals have surfaced, including the petitioner, who appears to be the central figure in executing the fraud. The investigation has brought to light significant financial transactions and fraudulent activities involving government records.”

The judgment extensively discussed the legal framework for distinguishing between departmental and criminal inquiries. It reiterated that the criminal investigation must proceed independently of departmental findings. “The material collected during the investigation justifies the registration of the FIR and the ongoing investigation,” the Court asserted, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Justice Vinod Diwakar remarked, “Such a large-scale organized fraud cannot be executed without the active connivance of officials. The investigation must be thorough and unbiased, involving scientific and forensic assistance in evidence collection.”

The Allahabad High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition and uphold the ongoing investigation underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing serious allegations of fraud and forgery. By emphasizing the need for a thorough and impartial investigation, the Court aims to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and deter similar fraudulent activities in the future. The judgment highlights the critical distinction between departmental exoneration and criminal liability, reinforcing the legal framework for prosecuting government officials involved in fraudulent activities.

Date of Decision: 7th May 2024

Suresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of UP and 2 Others

Similar News