Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Sunil Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2016
Decided On : 17-05-2019
Criminal Revision - Appointment Dispute - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 - The judgment discusses the appointment dispute of the revisionist in an educational institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and related acts. The court analyzed the allegations of fraud and the delay in lodging the FIR, and found that no offence under sections 419 and 420 IPC was made out against the revisionist. The court quashed the summoning order and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the informant for malicious prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was appointed in an educational institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and related acts. The informant, an advocate, lodged an FIR alleging that the revisionist obtained his appointment based on a forged degree. The revisionist challenged the summoning order, arguing that the informant had no locus standi and the criminal proceedings were initiated with malicious intent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the informant was not aggrieved and no offence under sections 419 and 420 IPC was made out against the revisionist. The court observed that the criminal proceedings were a clear abuse of process and quashed the summoning order. A cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the informant for malicious prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the criminal proceedings against the revisionist, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicability of sections 419 and 420 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the informant was not aggrieved and the criminal proceedings were a clear abuse of process. The court also emphasized the need to discourage such misuse of legal profession. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the informant for malicious prosecution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the summoning order and allowed the criminal revision. A cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the informant for malicious prosecution.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Bipin Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the materials available on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 16.3.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Varanasi in Case No. 1632 of 2016 (State vs Sunil Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 302 of 2015, under sections 419 and 420 IPC, PS Cholapur, District Varanasi, whereby the revisionist has been summoned to face trial.
3. Filtering out unnecessary detail, the brief facts of the case as emerges on record is that Amar Shaheed Inter College, Ayar, Varanasi is a duly recognized Institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and also governed under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the the Rules framed thereunder. The said Institution is managed by a recognized Committee of Management and the said Committee of Management is authorized to appoint the employees in the Institution. The Committee of Management of the aforesaid Institution appointed the revisionist on the post of Clerk-cum-Librarian against the leave vacancy with effect from 1.10.1986 to 20.10.1987. The said appointment of the revisionist was further approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 25.10.1986, appended as annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision.
4. The services of the revisionist on the said post came to an end on 28.7.1987 on account of joining of incumbent after completing his leave. Therefore, revisionist during the period of 01.10.1986 to 28.07.1987 managed his study in Shashtri-IInd Year Examination conducted by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and on 26.9.1987 Shashtri degree was awarded to the revisionist. Thereafter, on the basis of said Shashtri degree, the revisionist was appointed as Lecturer in the aforesaid Institution as Lecturer (Sanskrit).
5. It is pointed out on behalf of the revisionist that at this stage the revisionist came in hot water, without any fault of him. It is submitted that opposite party No. 2/informant of this case is practicing Advocate in district court, Varanasi, though, the opposite party No. 2 is not aggrieved with regard to educational qualifications and appointment of the revisionist, but he with a view to extract some money from the revisionist made a false complaint dated 01.05.2015 to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi against the revisionist making allegations that the Shashtri degree dated 26.09.1987 obtained by the revisionist is a forged document. On the said complaint dated 01.05.2015, District Inspector of Schools by order dated 25.06.2015 directed the Assistant District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to make an enquiry. Pursuant thereto, a detailed enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 28.08.2015 was submitted by Additional District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi mentioning therein that the allegations levelled by opposite party No. 2 against the revisionist in his complaint dated 1.5.2015 are wholly false. A specific finding has been recorded in the enquiry report dated 28.8.2015 that the revisionist Sunil Kumar Singh has not committed any fraud in obtaining his appointment and the Shashtri degree awarded to the revisionist is not a forged document.
6. It is next submitted that when opposite party No. 2 could not succeed in his plan, then he, on the same facts and allegations, lodged the impugned FIR on 04.09.2015 concealing his earlier complaint dated 01.05.2015 and enquiry report dated 28.08.2015, registered as Case Crime No. 302 of 2015, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC at police station Cholapur, District Varanasi, against the revisionist. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigatio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
