JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Maulana Murshid Ali Quadri, the principal of a minority institution known as Madarsa Arabia Madinatul Ilm, Peerkhanpur, Bhadohi for quashing of the FIR dated 13.10.2000 at case crime No. 475 of 2000, under Sections 193/196/420/423/467/468/471/477-A/120-B IPC and Sections 13(2)/13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Bhadohi, district Sant Ravidas Nagar.
3. The allegations in the FIR insofar as it related to the petitioner interalia were that three persons Kumail Ahmad Asharfi, Diwan Ahmad Ali and Qamrul Hasan were illegally paid salaries knowingly that their appointments were illegal and that they had not been appointed and thus the payment of Rs. 3,67,222.56 paise, 2,82,804.20 paise and 1,12,754.80 paisc were wholly unauthorized and illegal. The petitioner was the principal of the institution and conspired with others in this illegal act.
4. It may be noted that earlier writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on 23.5.2006 by a Bench of Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, JJ. The said order has not been annexed, but it is claimed that earlier petition was filed before the FIR was lodged and after the FIR was lodged, an amendment application was moved, and the Court refused to entertain the said petition.
5. As the petitioner has neither mentioned the number of writ petition, which was dismissed nor annexed the order, this Court may take it that the said petition seeking a parallel relief has already been dismissed and on this ground it would not be proper to entertain this writ petition.
6. However, even on merits, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed in this case, which appears to be in a nature of scam.
7. Recently the Full Bench in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State and Ors. Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4861 of 2000 decided on 5.7.2006 has reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satyapal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000 Cr.L.J 569, that there can be no interference with investigation or order staying arrest unless the FIR discloses no cognizable offence or there is any statutory restriction on the power of the police to investigate a case as laid down by the apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604, and that the observations and directions in Joginder Kumar's case, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 do not relate to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an FIR under Article 226 and contain only directions for the police, the breach whereof may call for departmental proceedings or action under contempt. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to utilize the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such a manner as to provide anticipatory bail which has been deleted in the State of U.P. and to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.
8. The petitioner's counsel has been unable to satisfy the Court that prima facie on the allegations in the FIR no cognizable offence is disclosed, or that there was any statutory restriction on the conduct of investigation in this case.
9. It appears that the petitioner and other accused have been approaching this Court for securing orders for payment of salary etc. The said orders are completely irrelevant for deciding whether the criminal offence has been disclosed in the FIR because arriving at the said decision prima facie allegation in the FIR ought to be considered.
10. There is also no reasonable explanation of the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition challenging the FIR dated 13.10.2000.
11. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.