ANIL KUMAR,JJ. - (1.) Heard Ms. Madhumita Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh,learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in Special Investigation Team, U.P. Lucknow, he was assigned the duties of the examination Clerk in the Recruitment Examination of Constable, Civil Police for the year 2009-2011 which was conducted in Police Lines, Lucknow. After the said examination certain complaints were made by the candidates. Thereafter the competent authority has ordered for preliminary inquiry. The same was conducted by Inspector Vigilance and he submitted his report on 25.07.2012 giving a finding that an offence under sections 420 , 465 , 468 , 471 , 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 / 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter F.I.R. in case crime no.518 of 2013 under sections 420 , 465 , 468 , 471 , 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 / 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , Police Station Wazirganj District Lucknow has been lodged against the petitioner. The same was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.45149MB) of 2017 (Jitendra Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed by order dated 24.03.2017 which reads as under:- "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing FIR in Case Crime No.518 of 2013, under Sections 420 , 465 , 468 , 471 and 120-B IPC and Section7/13(i)d of Prevention of Anti-Corruption Act , Police Station - Wazirganj, District - Lucknow. 2. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit, it has been stated that before lodging of the impugned FIR, a detailed enquiry was conducted. Incriminating material has been found against the petitioner. It has elaborated in Para-7 of the short counter affidavit that the petitioner was serving as Clerk and was custodian of the documents relating to the U.P. Police Recruitment Board held in the year 2009. During the course of investigation, it was found that the candidates who have been declared unfit by the Medical Board were shown as fit by interpolating record by using whitener. It has been pointed out that co-accused of the petitioner has already been taken in custody. 3. No such material has been placed on record that can be translated into legal evidence so as to disprove the allegation made by the prosecution. Thorough investigation in the matter is required. 4. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in context of the material/ pleadings relied on by the petitioner(s), in context of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajiv Thappar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330. In Rajiv Thappar's case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held:- "29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to herein above, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/ complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/ complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: 30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? (Emphasised by us) 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 5. We are of the considered opinion that the material/pleadings on which learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied, is not such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges/allegations levelled against the accused; and the material produced is not of sterling and impeccable quality as would persuade reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusation as false. 6. Under the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. The petition is dismissed." ;