Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7006 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bhola Nath, Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Lakshman Singh Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the
F.I.R.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a
complaint against Smt. Sushila Devi, the pradhan of the village and the
petitioner who is her husband. The main allegation against the pradhan and
her husband was that they had charged money from the persons who were
allowed widow and old age pensions etc. they got the BPL cards prepared in
the names of persons who were not entitled. The complainant had pointed out
that the other irregularities too. The complainant was inquired into by the
District Panchayat Raj Officer who submitted his report on 25.08.2008.
Thereafter the detailed inquiry was conducted in which the allegations were
found to be false. Consequently the pradhan was exonerated and thereafter the
A.D.O. Panchayat, Vikas Khand, Laharpur, Sitapur lodged the First
Information Report against the petitioner on the same report i.e. report dated
25.08.2008 which was not substantiated by the final inquiry. Whatever
allegations were made those were made against the pradhan not the petitioner.
Therefore no offence under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. is made out against the
petitioner. Therefore he deserves interim protection during the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner on the
basis of inquiry report dated 25.08.2008 has been found to be involved in
charging illegal money from the persons whom old age and widow pensions
were sanctioned. As per allegation of the First Information Report prima facie
offence is made out against the petitioner, the accused do not deserve for
interim protection.
Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.G.A., keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
documents available on record as well as the allegation of the complainant in
the F.I.R. which discloses commission of cognizable offence, the writ petition
is finally disposed of with the observation that till any credible and cogent
evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners or
filing of the charge-sheet/police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whichever
is earlier, the petitioner (Bhola Nath) will not be arrested by the Investigating
Officer in Case Crime No. 182 of 2010, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., Police
Station Laharpur, District Sitapur subject to his cooperation in the
investigation which will go on.
Order Date :- 27.7.2010
PAL