Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32746 of 2017 Applicant :- Gyanendra Prasad Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Amit Saxena, Advocate and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pawan Shukla, learned AGA for the State.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No.2 of 2017, dated 17.6.2017, under Section 417 I.P.C. and 13(1)D/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut in Case Crime No.36/2011 in respect of the applicant only as well as order dated 7.7.2017 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Meerut in Case No.18/57/2017, State Vs. Ramesh Chandra Maurya and others, under Section 417 I.P.C. and 13(1)D/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut in Case Crime No.36/2011, by which NBW has been issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case the applicant is a retired Principal of Sir Shriram Inter College, District Meerut and he does not have any power to appoint Assistant Teacher in the college. The allegations levelled against the applicant in the charge sheet is absolutely vague, incorrect and baseless. He further submitted that the Committee of Management had adjudicated the due procedure for making appointment of two assistant teachers in Primary Section of Sir Shriram Inter College, District Meerut and thereafter Committee of Management has sent the letter dated 14.2.1997 for approval of the then District Inspector of Schools, Meerut alongwith the aforesaid letter and other relevant documents which was approved by the then District Inspector of Schools, Meerut vide order dated 3.5.1997. In view of the approval granted by the then District Inspector of Schools, the appointment letter was issued to both the Assistant Teachers by 13.5.1997 by Committee of Management and there was no role of the applicant in it. After the appointment made by the then Manager, in view of the approval dated 3.5.1997 some complaint was made by the then District Inspector of Schools, Meerut who passed the order dated 5.7.1997 suspending its approval dated 3.5.1997 and initiated an enquiry in the matter. The then District Inspector of School thereafter submitted a report dated 20.7.1997 holding the appointment of two assistant teachers namely, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and Sri Yashpal Singh has valid appointments. Thereafter some further complaints were made before the then District Inspector of Schools against the appointments made in the college on account of which he cancelled the order dated 3.5.1997 vide his order dated 8.6.1998 and in pursuance thereof immediately the then Management of College cancelled the appointment of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and Sri Yashpal Singh vide order dated 1.7.1998. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not passed any order in the appointment of the said two Assistant Teachers and in the FIR there was no allegation against the applicant that any personal gain was levelled and so far as loss assessed in the FIR with regard to payment of salary of Yashpal Singh amounting to Rs.10,620/- was paid untill order of the then District Inspector of Schools and not under the order of the applicant.
Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the chargesheet and the order taking cognizance and stated that the appointments of the two assistant teachers made were found to be illegal and their services were also terminated by the competent authority as it was found to be made against the procedure and settled preposition of law as was held by this Court in the case of Radha Raizada versus Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College reported in LAWS(ALL)-1994-7-50. It has been further argued that the chargesheet which has been submitted against the applicant and the co-accused persons is for the offence under Sections 417, 465, 468, 420, 471 IPC and Sections 13 (1)(D) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been further submitted that though the applicant is not public servant but he in connivance with the public servant was instrumental in the appointment of the Assistant teachers in Sir Shriram Inter College, Daurala, Meerut which was made without advertising the post in the newspaper.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned chargesheet and other material on record it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed against the applicant. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 847 in the case of Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar versus State of Maharashtra and others it has been held that the correctness of an allegation against the accused has to be decided only in trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contention made on behalf of the accused. Hence, the prayer for quashing of chargesheet and impugned order is hereby refused.
For a period of four weeks from today, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
In case, the applicant does not appears before the Court below within the aforesaid period, trial Court is free to take coercive action against them.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Deepika