# Ankur Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-30
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 10928 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankur-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47228
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

G.A.

A. Practice & Procedure - Interim orders -
Object & Scope - interim orders/directions
are issued on the basis of prima facie
finding & makes temporary arrangements
to preserve status quo to ensure that the
matter
does
not
either
become
infructuous or a fait accompli before final
hearing - Precedent -interim directions
based on tentative reasons, restricted to
peculiar
facts
of
the
case
involving
extraordinary situation have no value of
precedent - interim order which does not
finally and conclusively decide an issue
7 All. Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
cannot be a precedent - interim order and
direction issued in a case binds the parties
to that case only and that too, till the final
decision of the matter by final judgment -
Interim order not binding on Co-ordinate
Bench the Court (Para 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Quashing
of FIR - Court has to eschew itself from
embarking upon a roving enquiry into the
last details of the case - not advisable to
adjudge whether the case shall ultimately
end in submission of charge sheet and
then eventually in conviction or not - Only
a prima facie satisfaction of the court
about
the
existence
of
sufficient
ingredients constituting the offence is
required in order to see whether the F.I.R.
requires to be investigated or deserves
quashing - ambit of investigation into the
alleged offence is an independent area of
operation
and
does
not
call
for
interference in the same except in rarest
of rare cases (Para 23)

FIR u/ss 409, 120-B IPC & S. 13(1) r/w S.13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act - petitioner is
the holder of mining lease - F.I.R. lodged on the
basis of inquiry report of Lok Ayukta in regard to
corruption and irregularities - allegation of
embezzlement of Government exchequer of
Rs.14,10,50,63,200/- - Sufficient ground for
investigation in the matter shown - FIR not
liable to be quashed (Para 22, 24, 25)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused being committed to it for trial,
inter alia, upon a police report of such
facts."

25. Placing reliance upon the
aforesaid judgment, the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
only special court, constituted under
Section 22 of the NIA Act, has jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the offences in
question. In absence of such court, the
sessions court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance because, in the present matter,
F.I.R. No.0004 of 2021 has been registered
under the provisions of UA (P) Act also.
The aforesaid contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner has been
vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A.,
who submits that the State Government, in
exercise of power vested in it by Section 22
of the NIA Act, has constituted special
court and the special court has taken
cognizance of the offence in question. In
view of the above, we do not find any
substance in the aforesaid arguments of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

26. The petitioner has, thus, been
unable to show that the power of
investigation has been exercised by the
Investigating Officer mala fide. It is also
not found to be a case of abuse of power
and non-compliance by the Investigating
Agency following under Chapter XII of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
investigation has also been concluded by
the respondent no.6. So far as the
allegation of use of term "South Terror" on
the portal of respondent no.5 is concerned,
it is pertinent to mention here that use of
such term would not per se import element
of malice or bias towards the petitioner.
However, we view this fact with profound
concerned and disapprove use of such
term.

27. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the considered view
that it is not a rare or exceptional case
where investigation needs to be transferred
to the CBI as a court monitored matter.

28. No other issue has been urged
before us by the learned counsel for the
parties.

29. As discussed above, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed and the
same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A580
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Misc. Bench No. 10928 of 2021

Ankur Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Pratap Singh 'Vatsa'

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Practice & Procedure - Interim orders -
Object & Scope - interim orders/directions
are issued on the basis of prima facie
finding & makes temporary arrangements
to preserve status quo to ensure that the
matter
does
not
either
become
infructuous or a fait accompli before final
hearing - Precedent -interim directions
based on tentative reasons, restricted to
peculiar
facts
of
the
case
involving
extraordinary situation have no value of
precedent - interim order which does not
finally and conclusively decide an issue
7 All. Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
cannot be a precedent - interim order and
direction issued in a case binds the parties
to that case only and that too, till the final
decision of the matter by final judgment -
Interim order not binding on Co-ordinate
Bench the Court (Para 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Quashing
of FIR - Court has to eschew itself from
embarking upon a roving enquiry into the
last details of the case - not advisable to
adjudge whether the case shall ultimately
end in submission of charge sheet and
then eventually in conviction or not - Only
a prima facie satisfaction of the court
about
the
existence
of
sufficient
ingredients constituting the offence is
required in order to see whether the F.I.R.
requires to be investigated or deserves
quashing - ambit of investigation into the
alleged offence is an independent area of
operation
and
does
not
call
for
interference in the same except in rarest
of rare cases (Para 23)

FIR u/ss 409, 120-B IPC & S. 13(1) r/w S.13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act - petitioner is
the holder of mining lease - F.I.R. lodged on the
basis of inquiry report of Lok Ayukta in regard to
corruption and irregularities - allegation of
embezzlement of Government exchequer of
Rs.14,10,50,63,200/- - Sufficient ground for
investigation in the matter shown - FIR not
liable to be quashed (Para 22, 24, 25)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :

1. St. of Assam Vs Barak Upatyaka D.U.
Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694

2. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah. (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided
on 13.04.2021)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

(1) The Court has convened through
Video Conferencing.

(2) Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh
''Vatsa', learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned AGA for the State and perused
the material brought on record.

(3) The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner, Ankur
Agarwal, challenging the First Information
Report dated 01.01.2014 so far as it relates
to the petitioner registered as F.I.R. No. 01
of 2014, under Sections 409/120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) read
with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners
has argued that the petitioner is lease holder
of mining in District Mirzapur. The State
Government took a decision to construct
Memorial and Parks in the city of Lucknow
and NOIDA and for this purpose, a
Committee comprising Managing Director
of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., the
Director of the Department of Geology and
Mining and the Joint Director was
constituted for making inspection in the
Ahraura Region of District Mirzapur to
verify as to whether sufficient quantity of
pink sandstones were available or not. The
said Committee, after due inspection, found
the sufficient quantities of pink sandstones
in the aforesaid area and, therefore, a
Committee of seven officials of which three
officers belonged to the U.P. Rajkiya Niram
Nigam Ltd and four belonging to the
Geology Department conducted a survey
and submitted its report. In pursuance
thereof, a letter dated 13.07.2007 was sent
by the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P.
to the Managing Director of U.P. Rajkiya
Nirman Nigam Ltd. to the effect that it has
been decided that a consortium of lease
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holders should be constituted for the
purposes of entering into an agreement for
the purposes of supply of sandstone of the
required quantity and necessary steps were
recommended to be taken for the aforesaid
purpose. Thereafter, individual letters of
intent for supply of Mirzapur sandstones
were issued to the petitioner. On the basis
of the said letter of intent of the State
Government,
the
petitioner
supplied
requisite quantity of sandstone to the
department and has also received the
payment at the agreed rate and at that
relevant time, there is no complaint or
allegation regarding quality or quantity of
material supplied by the petitioner to the
State Government but after change of
Government in Uttar Pradesh, the newly
formed Government has instituted an
inquiry in the matter and entrusted it to the
U.P. Lok Ayukta to enquire into the
allegations of corruption and irregularities
during the period 2007 to 2011 as regards
to supply of sandstone from District of
Mirzapur,
Sonbhadra,
Bayana,
Bharatpur/Jaipur (Rajasthan) and other
districts.

(5) It has been argued by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the Lok
Ayukta, without affording any opportunity
of
hearing,
conducted
enquiry
and
submitted
his
report
to
the
State
Government. He argued that there is no
allegation against the petitioner in the
finding recorded by the Lok Ayukta that the
required quantity of sandstones was not
supplied or the sandstone supplied was of
an inferior quality nor the allegation that
there is collusion between the petitioner
and the officials of State Government as
uniform and there was no difference
whatsoever regarding the rates at which
such supply was made by an individual
lease holder. However, a notice dated
29.08.2013 and 20.09.2013 was served
upon the petitioner, which was issued by
the District Magistrate, Mirzapur to show
cause as to why his mining leases be not
cancelled and his name be not placed in the
blacklist. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
has filed Writ-C No. 62139 of 2013 : Ankur
Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and others and
other similarly situated lease holder has
also filed Writ-C No. 54197 of 2013 :
Panna Lal and 15 others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, before this Court at Allahabad,
in which interim protection has been
granted by the Court vide orders dated
10.10.2013 and 13.11.2013, respectively,
restraining
the
District
Magistrate,
Mirzapur to take any further action
pursuance to notice issued by him. The
aforesaid writ petition is pending before
this Court at Allahabad.

(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further argued that in pursuance of the
recommendations of the Lok Ayukta, the
U.P.
Vigilance
Establishment,
Sector
Lucknow has lodged F.I.R. on 01.10.2014,
registered as F.I.R. No. 1 of 2014, under
Sections 409/120-B I.P.C. and Section 13
(1) read with Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police
Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. He
argued that from perusal of the aforesaid
F.I.R. reveals that the same is registered
against 19 persons and the name of the
petitioner is not there. However, during the
course of investigation, a summon/notice
dated 14.02.2014/15.02.2014 was issued to
the
petitioner
by
the
Vigilance
Establishment
for
appearance
on
03.03.2014
and
again
notices
dated
30.05.2015 and dated 02.02.2016 were
issued to the petitioner by the Vigilance
Department requiring him to produce
certain documents. The petitioner has
complied with the aforesaid directions of
7 All. Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
the establishment. Thereafter, the matter
remained silent but all of a sudden on
15.05.2021, while the petitioner was not in
his house, the local police conducted raid
and stated that the petitioner is being
required for arrest in pursuance of the
impugned F.I.R.

(7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that perusal of the
impugned F.I.R. mainly revolves around
with an allegation that without adopting the
tender process, the work has been given by
means of consortium and the sandstone
which could have been purchased at a rate
of Rs.50 to Rs.75 have been purchased at
an excessive rate of Rs.150/- per cubic feet
without conducting survey of market rate
collusively. He argued that out of 59
identically placed suppliers, only 20
suppliers have been targeted with ulterior
motive under political influence. He argued
that neither offence under Section 409
I.P.C. nor the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act are attracted to the
petitioner, who is a contractor although he
has been involved in the construction
activities entrusted to him by U.P. Rajkiya
Nirman Nigam Ltd. and furthermore, no
charge-sheet has yet been filed against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R.
He argued that impugned FIR is abuse of
the process of law. Thus, the impugned FIR
is liable to be quashed.

(8) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further stated that two accused persons,
namely, Ashok Kumar and Panna Lal
Yadav have also challenged the impugned
F.I.R. by filing writ petition No. 6369 of
2020 (M/B) and 12206 of 2020 (M/B),
respectively, wherein vide orders dated
06.03.2020 and 31.07.2020, respectively, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
stayed the arrest of the aforesaid writ
petitioners. Therefore, the benefit of the
aforesaid interim orders may be granted to
the present writ petitioner.

(9) Per contra, learned AGA for the
State opposed the prayer of the petitioner
for quashing the impugned F.I.R. and also
staying the arrest of the petitioner and
argued that from the perusal of the FIR,
prima facie, it cannot be said that no
cognizable offence is made out, hence, no
ground exists for quashing the F.I.R. or
staying the arrest of
the petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner has an efficacious
remedy for seeking anticipatory bail in the
matter before the competent Court, which
has been made applicable in the State of
U.P. w.e.f. 06.06.2019.

(10) Learned AGA has also argued
that
the
the
State
Government
has
sanctioned the prosecution of co-accused,
Rajeev Kumar Singh, Heera Lal, Rakesh
Chandra, Rajesh Chaudhari, Shiv Pal
Singh, Bhupendra Dutt Tripathi and Shukh
Lal Yadav, who were public servant, in
respect of F.I.R. No. 01 of 2014, which is
the impugned F.I.R. in the present case, and
the said sanction order was challenged by
them by filing Writ Petition Nos. 25382 of
2020 (M/B), 25759 of 2020, 25756 of 2020
(M/B), 25639 of 2020 (M/B), 25508 of
2020 (M/B), and 25453 of 2020 (M/B),
respectively, before this Court and this
Court, vide judgment and order dated
21.01.2021 and 17.02.2021, respectively,
dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions.

(11) So far as the claim of the
petitioner for giving the benefit of interim
orders as has been granted by a Co-ordinate
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bench of this Court vide orders dated
06.03.2020 and 31.07.2020 passed in writ
petition No. 6369 of 2020 (M/B) and 12206
of 2020 (M/B), respectively, it has been
argued by the learned AGA that the instant
writ petition is being argued finally by the
parties, therefore, aforesaid interim orders
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court cannot be granted to the petitioner.

(12)

We
have
examined
the
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties and gone through
the record.

(13) Before proceeding further on
merit of the case, we deem it appropriate to
first adjudicate the submission of the
learned counsel for petitioner that the
petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the
interim orders dated 06.03.2020 and
31.07.2020 passed in writ petition No. 6369
of 2020 (M/B) and 12206 of 2020 (M/B),
respectively.

(14)
 The
interim
order
dated
06.03.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.
6369 of 2020 (M/B) reads as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

This petition seeks issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the impugned First Information Report
dated 01.01.2014 registered as Case Crime
No.1 of 2014, under Sections - 409/120B
IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police
Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow.

After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, who are present today and
going through the records, prima facie, the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner appears to be correct, as such, as
an interim measure, we hereby provide that
the prosecution in question may go on but
till the next date of listing or till filling of
the police report under Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioner
shall not be arrested in connection with the
aforesaid first information report number.
However, the petitioner will co-operate
with the investigation.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is
granted four weeks' time to file counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter."

(15)
 The
interim
order
dated
31.07.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.
12206 of 2020 (M/B) reads as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the
opposite party nos.1, 3 to 6 and perused the
record.

This petition seeks issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
of the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.01.2014
registered by the Opposite Party No.6 as
Case Crime No.1 of 2014, Under Sections
409, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and
13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
Police Station Gomti Nagar, District
Lucknow.

It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in identical
circumstances the arrest of the co-accused
Ashok Singh has been stayed by this Court
vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed by this
Court. The said order is being quoted
hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

This petition seeks issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the impugned First Information Report
7 All. Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
dated 01.01.2014 registered as Case Crime
No.1 of 2014, under Sections - 409/120B
IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police
Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow.

After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, who are present today and going
through the records, prima facie, the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner appears to be correct, as such, as
an interim measure, we hereby provide that
the prosecution in question may go on but till
the next date of listing or till filling of the
police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.,
whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not
be arrested in connection with the aforesaid
first information report number. However, the
petitioner
will
co-operate
with
the
investigation.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is
granted four weeks' time to file counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter."

Accordingly, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the same
benefit may be given to the present petitioner
also, as such, his arrest may be stayed.

Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the matter on merit but he has not
disputed the fact that as an interim
protection, the arrest of the co-accused Ashok
Singh has already been stayed by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and going through the records,
prima facie, the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner appears to
be correct, as such, as an interim measure till
the next date of listing or till the filing of the
police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
whichever is earlier, petitioner (Panna Lal
Yadav) shall not be arrested in connection
with the aforesaid case crime number.
However, the petitioner will co-operate
with the investigation.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is
granted four weeks' time to file counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within two weeks' thereafter.

List thereafter alongwith Writ
Petition No.6369 (M/B) of 2020 (Ashok Singh
Vs.
State of
U.P.
Through
Principal
Secretary)."

(16) It transpires from the aforesaid
interim order dated 06.03.2020 that the
same is not speaking order, whereas interim
order dated 31.07.2020 has been passed by
giving parity of the aforesaid interim order
dated 06.03.2020 and that too also not a
speaking order.

(17) It is settled law that the interim
orders/directions are issued on the basis
of prima facie finding and makes
temporary
arrangements
to
preserve
status quo to ensure that the matter does
not either become infructuous or a fait
accompli before final hearing and this
view has again been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U.
Karmachari Sanstha : (2009) 5 SCC
694). The Hon'ble Supreme Court again
held that interim directions based on
tentative reasons, restricted to peculiar
facts of the case involving extra- ordinary
situation have no value of precedent and
the interim order which does not finally
and conclusively decide an issue cannot
be a precedent. Apart from above, it is
also settled law that the interim order and
direction issued in a case binds the
parties to that case only and that too, till
the final decision of the matter by final
judgment.
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(18) Here, at this stage, we are finally
hearing the matter with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, therefore,
interim orders dated 06.03.2020 and
31.07.2020 passed in writ petition No. 6369
of 2020 (M/B) and 12206 of 2020 (M/B),
respectively, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court are not binding on us. Therefore, the
plea of the petitioner in this regard is not
sustainable and is, accordingly, rejected.
Now, we proceed to adjudicate the matter
on merits.

(19) The legal position on the issue of
quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings is
well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a
complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be
exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
cases. The Courts should not ordinarily
interfere
with
the
investigations
of
cognizable offences. However, where the
allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint even if taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused, the FIR or the
charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of
powers under Article 226 or inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(20)

Recently,
in
Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State
of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.
330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021), a
three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the powers of the High
Court while adjudicating a petition for
quashing of the FIR under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
In
Neeharika
Infrastructure
Private
Limited (supra), the appellants challenged
an interim order issued by the Bombay
High Court, in a quashing petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226
of the Constitution. The Bombay High
Court issued an interim order directing that
"no coercive measures shall be adopted
against the petitioners in respect of the said
FIR". While examining the correctness of
the said interim order, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in para-23 has held as under :

"23. In view of the above and for
the
reasons
stated
above,
our
final
conclusions on the principal/core issue,
whether the High Court would be justified
in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or "no coercive steps to
be adopted", during the pendency of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and in what circumstances and
whether the High Court would be justified
in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the
final report/chargesheet is filed under
Section
173
Cr.P.C.,
while
dismissing/disposing
of/not
entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right
and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained
in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that
the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on;

iv) The power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly with circumspection,
as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of
7 All. Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).

v)
While
examining
an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an
ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the
police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities
and one ought not to tread over the other
sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary
and the police are complementary, not
overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases
where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent
powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is
not an encyclopaedia which must disclose
all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is
no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before
the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time,
the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to
the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing
the FIR is made by the alleged accused and
the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters
would be applicable and/or the aforesaid
aspects are required to be considered by the
High Court while passing an interim order
in a quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, an interim order of stay of
investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order
should not require to be passed routinely,
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
casually and/or mechanically. Normally,
when the investigation is in progress and
the
facts
are
hazy
and
the
entire
evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain itself
from passing the interim order of not to
arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted"
and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The
High Court shall not and as such is not
justified in passing the order of not to arrest
and/or "no coercive steps" either during the
investigation or till the investigation is
completed
and/or
till
the
final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of
the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case
where the High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is made
out for grant of interim stay of further
investigation, after considering the broad
parameters while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
referred to hereinabove, the High Court has
to give brief reasons why such an interim
order is warranted and/or is required to be
passed so that it can demonstrate the
application of mind by the Court and the
higher forum can consider what was
weighed with the High Court while passing
such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order
is passed by the High Court of "no coercive
steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify
what does it mean by "no coercive steps to
be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps
to be adopted" can be said to be too vague
and/or broad which can be misunderstood
and/or misapplied.

(21) Keeping in mind the aforesaid
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we
find that in the instant case, it transpires
from the impugned F.I.R. that it has been
lodged on the basis of inquiry report of Lok
Ayukta in regard to corruption and
irregularities committed during the period
2007 to 2011 for supply of sandstone. It
also transpires that there is embezzlement
of
Government
exchequer
of
Rs.14,10,50,63,200/- and in the said loss of
Government exchequer, besides former
ministers, officer(s) of the State, Firms
related to construction work and persons
are responsible as with their connivance,
the said amount has been embezzled.

(22) Admittedly, the petitioner is the
holder of mining lease in District Mirzapur,
therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is not involved in the present
case as it is a categorical averment in the
impugned F.I.R. that in the embezzlement
of Government exchequer, apart from
former ministers, Government officials and
officer of Nirman Agency, the firm related
to construction work and persons are also
responsible as the said embezzlement have
been made with their connivance.

(23) It is well settled that this Court
has to eschew itself from embarking upon a
roving enquiry into the last details of the
case. It is also not advisable to adjudge
whether the case shall ultimately end in
submission of charge sheet and then
eventually in conviction or not. Only a
prima facie satisfaction of the court about
the existence of sufficient ingredients
constituting the offence is required in order
to see whether the F.I.R. requires to be
investigated or deserves quashing. The
ambit of investigation into the alleged
offence is an independent area of operation
7 All. Hemant Kumar Saini Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
589
and does not call for interference in the
same except in rarest of rare cases.

(24) Keeping in view the aforesaid
law and considering the submissions raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are
of the considered view that the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner
call
for
determination
on
questions of fact which may be adequately
discerned
either
through
proper
investigation or which may be adjudicated
upon only by the trial court and even the
submissions made on points of law can also
be more appropriately gone into only by the
trial Court in case a charge sheet is
submitted in this case. The perusal of the
record makes out, prima facie, offences at
this stage and there appears to be sufficient
ground for investigation in the case.

(25) In view of the aforesaid,
considering the allegations made in the FIR
and material brought on record, it cannot be
said that no prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner, rather there appears
to be sufficient ground for investigation in
the matter. Accordingly, we do not find any
justification to quash the impugned F.I.R.

(26) The petition lacks substance and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR
JAUHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 11190 of 2021
&
Misc. Bench No. 11396 of 2021

Hemant Kumar Saini ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Rituraj Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Akhilesh Awasthi

Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
&
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985
-
Section 65 - Power to call for information,
-
notice
is
merely
for
enquiry/interrogation - Constitution of
India, Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - to
quash notice/summon issued u/s 67 - writ
petition against such a kind of notice
should not ordinarily be entertained - It is
pre-mature in nature because notice by
itself does not give rise to cause of action,
as no adverse order has yet been passed -
in the event of adverse decision, it will
certainly be opened to accused persons to
assail
the
same
in
appropriate
proceedings under the law - Undoubtedly
in certain conditions, when there is a
question of infringement of fundamental
right or on the point of lack of jurisdiction,
such notice/summon can be challenged
(Para 50)

Case of petitioners is at the stage of
investigation & the notice/summon u/s 67 has
been issued to petitioners only for the
satisfaction of investigating officer that whether
there has been any contravention of the
provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act,1985 or not - It is
quite possible that in the enquiry if the evidence
comes before the Investigating Officer that the
Firm of petitioners has not violated N.D.P.S. Act,
1985 as well as Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
the enquiry/Investigating Officer of NCB may
submit its report accordingly and the petitioners
may be exonerated from prosecution (Para 50)

Dismissed.(E-4)