JUDGMENT Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
2. In this case, an FIR was registered at case crime No. 430 of 2005 under Sections 120B, 218, 420, 467, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act.
3. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR were that the petitioner along with Shri Nath Yadav, who were consolidation lekhpals, in between the years 1990 to 1993 colluded with other consolidation authorities and on the basis of fake cases got the Gaon Samaj tank, grazing and "bachat" land reserved in the name of Baran Singh Junior High School. In an open vigilance inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance sector, Varanasi, the petitioner was found guilty and consequently, the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow by his letter-dated 6.1.2005 directed registration of the aforesaid case against the petitioner and Shri Nath Yadav. However, subsequently, it was found that the name of Shri Nath Yadav was inserted out of some confusion and at some places it was shown as Dev Nath Yadav. Hence the FIR was lodged only against the petitioner on 22.2.2005. The petitioner has mentioned in para 5 of his writ petition that he was transferred from District Ghazipur on 14.7.1988 and reported on duty on 1.10.1988 in the office of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mirzapur.
4. As held in Savita v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 338, such defence materials, given by a party cannot be considered in a writ petition for quashing the FIR. Moreover, in Sri Satya Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , apex Court has disapproved grant of stay by the High Court in Prevention of corruption Act matters in view of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, the allegation in the FIR was that the petitioner had colluded with other consolidation authorities and got the land transformed on the basis of fake cases, which would not have required his constant presence at the place. It also needs to be investigated as to whether the petitioner used to go to Ghazipur, where that alleged fraud took place. A vigilance inquiry has already found the complicity of the petitioner. These matters cannot be pre-judged in a writ petition.
5. Hence there is no ground for quashing of the FIR and the writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.
6. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.