CRLP/11117/2025 of SHIV KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO. AND OTHERS on 25 November 2025

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 by Shri Gulam Rabbani is also taken on record.

3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner was given an option of withdrawing the petition in order to pursue other remedy as may be available to the petitioner but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the Court should go into the merits of the matter and decide the same.

4. Accordingly, on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has decided to go through the matter on merits.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4

6. Under challenge is the F.I.R. dated 12.11.2025 bearing F.I.R. / Case Crime No.0140 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mawai, District- Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R.

7. From a perusal of the F.I.R., it emerges that the petitioner, while acting in the capacity of being a Pradhan, has not made the payment to whom the said payment was to be made rather, on the basis of fake and fabricated vouchers, the payment has been made to a third party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the grounds that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhir Kumar Singh, Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gulam Rabbani Shiv Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)

the aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged in a most malicious manner inasmuch as (a) the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after a period of almost five year; (b) no complaint has been made by the person to whom the payment was not made and consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the said F.I.R. to have been lodged at the instance of a third party; and (c) one Ravindra Kumar Verma, the then Assistant Development Officer, asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied by the petitioner, therefore, a false report was prepared by Rajnish Verma, who was the then Village Development Officer, on the behest of aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Verma who was arrested on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by In-charge Trap Team. The copy of the F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition.

9. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, Shri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has argued that an inquiry had duly been conducted by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya who submitted a report dated 05.10.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 wherein the conduct of the petitioner having made the fictitious payment has emerged.

11. Reliance has also been placed on the report of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit, to indicate that although, after construction had been got made by the petitioner along with another person, the payments were to be made to M/s Santram Traders and M/s Aman Enterprises yet the payments have been made on the basis of fictitious vouchers to M/s Sanjay Traders and M/s Khan Traders and thus, the erstwhile Pradhan i.e. the petitioner along with the erstwhile Gram Vikas Adhikari, Ayodhya Shri Amit Gupta have been found guilty and thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged.

12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. for having made the fictitious payments apart from the other irregularities as indicated in the said F.I.R.

13. Considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would amount to holding a mini trial which has been restrained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of cases. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial." (emphasis by the Court)

14. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR.

15. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

16. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others- (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that while examining of FIR quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

17. From a perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the petitioner along with others have indulged in an incident. The petitioner has also been specifically named in the incident and the F.I.R. as well.

18. The grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if are to be considered by this Court, would primarily amount to holding of a mini trial and an inquiry which has specifically been restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh (supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra) inasmuch as the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the credibility of the witnesses etc cannot be seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.

19. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted to go through the merits of the matter also, as such, the Court now proceeds to consider the merits of the case.

20. The lodging of the F.I.R. is duly supported by the inquiry as made by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya dated 11.07.2025 as well as by the Assistant Development Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya dated 05.10.2025.

21. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 11.07.2025 is reproduced below: प्रेेषक, जिला पंचायत राज अधिकारी, अयोध्याया।

सेवा में, उप निदेशक (पंचायत). अयोध्याया मण्डडल, अयोध्याया।

पंत्रांांक 1437/7-पं०/स्थाथा०/IGRS / निस्तातारण/बीबीपुर-मवई/2025-26 दिनांक 11/07/2025

महोदय, कृपया ऑनलाइन सन्ददर्भ संख्याया-40017725033010 दिनांक 11.06.2025 का अवलोकन करने का कष्ट करें, जिसके माध्ययम से श्रीीमती खुशनुमा बानो पत्नीनी श्रीी इम्बिसात अहमद (पूर्व ग्रााम प्रधान), निवासी ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर विकास खण्डड मवई, अयोध्याया ने तत्काकालीन ग्रांांम पंचायत सचिव श्रीी रजनीश वर्मा की निगरानी में पंचायत भवन की छत स्ततर के कार्य में शटरिंग, सरिया आदि का कार्य कराया था, जिसका भुगतान अभी तक वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एवं सचिव द्वाारा नहीं किया गया है। श्रीी बानो द्वाारा उक्त का भुगतान कराये जाने के सम्बबन्धध में शिकायत की गयी है। उक्त प्रकरण में सादर अवगत कराना है कि अधोहस्ताताक्षरी द्वाारा सहायक विकास अधिकारी (पं०) मवई को सन्ददर्भित प्रकरण की जांच कर जांच आख्याया उपलब्धध कराने का निर्देश दिया गया। सहायक विकास अधिकारी (पं०) मवई ने अपने पत्र सं0-230 दिनांक 10.07.2025 द्वाारा अवगत कराया कि उपरोक्त शिकायत की जांच हेतु इस कार्यालय के पत्र सं०-1082 दिनांक 20.10.2022 के कम में ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर में निर्माण कराये गये पंचायत भवन/सामुदायिक शौचालय की पूर्ण पत्राावली उपलब्धध कराये जाने हेतु वर्तमान सचिव श्रीीमती ललिता देवी ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर को पत्र प्रेेषित किया गया। श्रीीमती ललिता देवी ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव द्वाारा उपरोक्त कार्यों की पत्राावली कार्यालय में प्रस्तुतुत की गयी, पत्राावली प्रााप्तत होने के उपरान्तत अधोहस्ताताक्षरी द्वाारा ग्रााम पंचायत में जाकर वर्तमान प्रधान एवं पूर्व प्रधान पति एवं ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव की उपस्थिति में प्रकरण की जांच की गयी। जांच के समय पूर्व

प्रधान पति द्वाारा अवगत कराया गया कि पंचायत भवन के छत स्ततर तक का निर्माण कार्य उनके द्वाारा कराया गया था, जिस पर वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एवं ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव श्रीीमती ललिता देवी द्वाारा इसकी पुष्टि भी की गयी। पत्राावली अवलोकन करने पर यह तथ्यय प्रकाश में आया कि पूर्व प्रधान खुशनुमा बानो द्वाारा उक्त कार्य से सम्बबन्धित बिल वाऊचर शिकायती पत्र में मेमर्स संतराम ट्रेेडर्स पर 109976.00 रूपयें एवं मेमर्स अमन इण्टटरप्रााइजेज पर मु० 5560.00 रूपयें कुल योग मु0- 165576.00 रूपये के बिल भुगतान करने के लिए संलग्नन किया है। किन्तुतु उक्त कार्य का भुगतान वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एवं तत्काकालीन सचिव द्वाारा मेसर्स खान ट्रेेडर्स पर क्रमशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एवं 24840.00 कुल योग-55600.00 एवं मेसर्स संजय ट्रेेडर्स पर मु० 109976.00 रूपये कुल योग मु0-165576,000 रूपये कर दिया गया है। जिसके लिए वर्तमान प्रधान एवं तत्काकालीन ग्रााम विकास अधिकारी, अयोध्याया श्रीी अमित गुप्ताता दोषी हैं। सहायक विकास अधिकारी (पं०) मबई की जांच आख्याया के आधार पर सन्ददर्भित प्रकरण में जिलाधिकारी महोदय के स्ततर से प्राारम्भिक जांच संस्थित करने हेतु नियमानुसार अग्रेेतर कार्यवाही प्रक्रियाधीन है। उक्ताानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को उनके दूरभाष नं० पर अवगत करा दिया गया है। अतः महोदय से अनुरोध है कि ऑनलाइन सन्ददर्भ संख्याया-40017725033010 दिनांक 11.06.2025 पर अंकित प्रकरण निक्षेेपित करने का कष्ट करें।

भवदीय

जिला पंचायत राज अधिकारी,z अयोध्याया। पत्रांांक /उक्त दिनांकित। प्रतिलिपिःः- श्रीीमती खुशनुमा बानो पत्नीनी श्रीी इम्बिसात अहमद, निवासी ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर विकास खण्डड मवई, अयोध्याया को सूचनार्थ प्रेेषित। जिला पंचायत राज अधिकारी, अयोध्याया।

22. For the sake of convenience, the inquiry report dated 05.10.2025 is reproduced below: प्रेेषक, सहायक विकास अधिकारी (पं०) मवई अयोध्याया।

सेवा में, जिला पंचायत राज अधिकारी अयोध्याया।

पत्रांांक 230/आनलाइन शिकायत सवंर्भ / 2025-26 दिनांक-05-10-2025

महोदय,

कृपया आनलाइन शिकायत संख्याया 40017725055986 दिनांक 20.09.2025 पर दर्ज प्रााप्तत शिकायती प्राार्थना पत्र में विकास खण्डड की ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे नवनिर्मित पंचायत भवन के भुगतान मु० 165576.00 रू0 की शिकायत पूर्व ग्रााम प्रधान बीबीपुर के पति श्रीी इम्बिशात अहमद पुत्र मो० उमर ने तत्काकालीन सचिव श्रीी रजनीश वर्मा की निगरानी मे (पंचायत भवन के छत स्ततर में सरिया, सटरिंग इत्यायादि) का कार्य कराया गया, परन्तुतु अभी तक भुगतान नहीं किया गया है। उपरोक्त शिकायत की जाँच हेतु इस कार्यालय पत्र संख्याया 1082 दिनांक- 20.10.2022 के द्वाारा ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर मे निर्माण कराये गये पंचायत भवन / सामुदायिक शौचालय की पूर्ण पत्राावली उपलब्धध कराये जाने हेतु वर्तमान संचिव श्रीीमती ललिता देवी ग्रााम पंचायत बीबीपुर को पत्र निर्गत कर पंचायत भवन निर्माण से सम्बबन्धित पत्राावली उपलब्धध कराये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया। श्रीीमती ललिता देवी ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव द्वाारा उपरोक्त कार्यों की पंत्राावली कार्यालय मे प्रस्तुतुत की गयी, पंत्राावली प्रााप्तत होने के उपरान्तत अधोहस्ताताक्षरी द्वाारा ग्रााम पंचायत में जाकर वर्तमान प्रधान एव पूर्व ग्रााम प्रधान पति एंव ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव की उपस्थिति में प्रकरण की जाँच की गयी, जाँच के समय पूर्व प्रधान द्वाारा अवगत कराया कि पंचायत भवन के छत स्ततर तक का निर्माण कार्य उनके द्वाारा कराया गया था, जिस पर वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एंव ग्रााम पंचायत सचिव श्रीीमती ललिता देवी द्वाारा इसकी पुष्टि भी की गयी। पत्राावली अवलोकन करने पर यह तथ्यय प्रकाश में आया कि पूर्व प्रधान खुशनुमा बानो द्वाारा उक्त कार्य से सम्बबन्धित बिल वाउचर शिकायती पत्र मे मेसर्स संतराम टेडर्स पर मु० 109976.00 रूपये एंव मेसर्स अमन इप्टटरप्रााइजेज पर मु० 55600.00 रूपये कुल योग मु० 165576.00 रूपये के बिल भुगतान करने के लिये संलग्नन किया गया है। किन्तुतु उक्त कार्य का भुगतान वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एंव तत्काकालीन सचिव द्वाारा मेसर्स खान टेडर्स पर कमशः मु० 11760.00, 19000.00 एंव 24840.00 रू 0 कुल योग 55600.00 रु० एंव मेसर्स संजय टेडर्स पर मु० 109976.00 रूपये कुल योग मु0 165576.00 रू0 कर दिया गया है। जिसके लिये वर्तमान ग्रााम प्रधान एंव तत्काकालीन ग्रााम विकास अधिकारी श्रीी अमित गुप्ताता दोषी है। अतः जाँच आख्याया आपकी सेवा मे आवश्ययक कार्यवाही हेतु सादर प्रेेषित है।

सहायक विकास अधिकारी (पं०) मवई-अयोध्याया।

23. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it thus emerges that the petitioner along with another person have been found guilty of having forged the documents and having made the payments, which were due to certain other persons, to a third party. Once the aforesaid reports have not been challenged obviously there cannot be any occasion for challenging the impugned F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of those reports. Once the offence as committed by the petitioner is clearly apparent, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned F.I.R.

24. The grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. has been lodged after an application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is found to be patently misconceived considering the fact that the F.I.R. itself indicates that various efforts had been made by the complainant before the higher authorities regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner but to no avail which, thus, constrained the complainant to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023). Thus, the said ground is rejected.

25. So far as the ground that no complaint had been made by the person to whom the payment was not made, the said ground is also misconceived inasmuch as once from the reports, as have been submitted by the competent officers i.e. the Assistant Developement Officer, Mawai, Ayodhya and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya on 05.10.2025 & 11.07.2025 respectively, the fabrication of the documents made by the petitioner are clearly made out and in case the persons to whom the payment was not made has not come forward, the same cannot absolve the petitioner of the irregularities and the fabrication of the documents as has been done by him. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

26. As regards the ground that the then A.D.O. had asked illegal gratification from the petitioner which was denied, the same cannot be considered to be a vaild ground for quashing the F.I.R. inasmuch as it was always open for the petitioner to have submitted a complaint in this regard to the competent authority regarding the alleged demand of bribe by the officer. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

27. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the impugned F.I.R. is made out.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 25, 2025 S. Shivhare

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench