Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

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