Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11931 of 2021 Petitioner :- Satya Deo Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 22.4.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 159 of 2021 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being Bank Manager at the concerned time had opened the bank accounts after adopting due process and he permitted to withdraw the amount from the bank accounts to the persons having bearer cheques issued by the account holders issued with the same signature as given as specimen in the bank at the time of opening bank accounts. It is further submitted that certain amounts were transferred to the DRDA on transfer slips and the rest of the amount was withdrawn through bearer cheque. It is further submitted that no complaint was made against the petitioner while serving as Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajrooppur and in the bank audit, no irregularity was found inthe audit report. Hence, no offence is made out against him. He further submits that matter is of the year 2011 but till date investigation has not been completed although the petitioner had attended concerned Economic Offence Wing.
Per contra, learned AGA, on instructions, submitted that during investigation it has come on record that the bank account of one Manoj Kumar Pandey was opened by the petitioner himself and he is not only named in the F.I.R. but prima facie his involvement has also come on record.
Be that as it may, from the list of fresh cases, it appears that arising out of the very same case crime number, Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 7879 of 2011 filed by co-acccused Vinay Kumar Srivastava was disposed of by this Court on 11.5.2011, which is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. Sri Lal Vijai Singh who has appeared on behalf of the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the first information report dated 22.4.2011 registered as Case Crime No. 159 of 2011, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, district Allahabad.
The charges against the petitioner are of siphoning huge amount of money from the official accounts of the District Panchayat Raj Officer which was not transferred for the relevant development work.
From a bare reading of the F.I.R. it is clear that the same had been lodged on the basis of a report dated 21.4.2011. On 4.5.2011, time was granted to the learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions and produce the enquiry report on the basis of which the first information report had been filed. The same has been produced today.
Keeping in view the nature of the charges as well as on perusal of the enquiry report and the fact that huge amount of money is involved which is said to have been siphoned, we are of the view that prima-facie it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have any role to play. As such, we are of the opinion that the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. does not deserve to be granted.
However, the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (Crl.) 110, has observed that the Investigating Agency cannot be given the latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time.
Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the investigation be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner applies for bail, it shall be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
The writ petition is disposed of."
We do not find any ground to take a different view of the matter.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
We further find that although, vide order dated 11.5.2011, this Court had already directed that the investigation be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, however, even after more than eleven years, the same is still pending. This is extremely unfortunate and sorry state of affairs. We, therefore, direct that the aforesaid command shall be followed in its letter and spirit.
Learned A.G.A. is directed to send a copy of this order within three days to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow and also to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow for necessary order and action.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Ram Murti Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA Date: 2021.12.21 11:29:28 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by SHREE PRAKASH SINGH Date: 2021.12.21 11:31:56 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad