# Braham Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (s)

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 573
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28093 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/braham-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-s-53933
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
Criminal proceedings if accused exonerated
from the disciplinary proceeding

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act-13(1)(e),
13(2)-
Applicant's
income
was
Rs.
43,71,394.00/- but his expenditure during a
certain
period
was
Rs.
10395229.37/-
expenditure is disproportionate to his known
income-FIR
lodged-charge
sheet
filedcognizance-impugned-even if an accused has
been
exonerated
in
the
departmental
proceeding- on the basis of same set of
charges- criminal prosecution even on same
charges cannot be quashed-not the case that
prima facie alleged offences are not made out
against Applicant-Application dismissed. (E9)
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Law Cited

## Text

9 All. Braham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
threatening by applicant has also not been
disclosed in the complaint. Even otherwise,
allegations do not constitute an offence
under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code
against
applicant.
The
court
concerned erred in issuing summons
against applicant under Sections 504 and
506 of Indian Penal Code.

27. The applicant is also summoned
under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code.
Section 323 of Indian Penal Code provides
for offence of causing hurt. The 'Hurt' has
been defined under Section 319 of I.P.C. as
whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
The informant has specifically alleged that
the accused has assaulted the Informant and
have thrown her out of matrimonial home.
The statement of complainant before the
court concerned alleges general, vague and
omnibus allegation against the applicant
with regard to assault and there is no
allegation in the first information report nor
in the statement of informant of causing
any body pain, disease or infirmity to
informant. The counsel for opposite party
no.2 has not relied upon any medical report
nor any doctor is shown to have been
examined by investigating officer with
regard to any bodily pain, disease or
infirmity. In view of the aforesaid, the
prosecution case does not satisfy the
ingredients of offence under Sections 323
IPC
read
with
section
319
IPC.
28. In view of reasons stated herein above,
the criminal proceedings against Applicant
(namely-Rohit
Sharma)
including
chargesheet
dated
12.05.2019
under
sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and under section 3/4 of
Dowary Prohibition Act, 1961, Police
Station - Chaubeypur, District - Varanasi as
well as cognizance order dated 25.07.2019
in Criminal Case No. 999 of 2019 (State Vs
Anil Sharma and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 2 of 2019 under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of
Dowary Prohibition Act pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, District
Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby quashed in
respect of applicant - Rohit Sharma. The
present application under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is allowed.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28093 of 2025

Braham Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajrshi Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Criminal proceedings if accused exonerated
from the disciplinary proceeding

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act-13(1)(e),
13(2)-
Applicant's
income
was
Rs.
43,71,394.00/- but his expenditure during a
certain
period
was
Rs.
10395229.37/-
expenditure is disproportionate to his known
income-FIR
lodged-charge
sheet
filedcognizance-impugned-even if an accused has
been
exonerated
in
the
departmental
proceeding- on the basis of same set of
charges- criminal prosecution even on same
charges cannot be quashed-not the case that
prima facie alleged offences are not made out
against Applicant-Application dismissed. (E9)
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Law Cited
1. P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar; 1996 (9) SCC 1
2. Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal and another; 2011 (3) SCC 581
3. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.;
2020(9) SCC 636
4. Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs.
Meenakshi Marwah and another (2005) 4
Supreme Court Cases 370
5. Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Mhd. Yousuf Miya and others;
(1997) 2 SCC 699
6. State Bank of India and others Vs. R.B.
Sharma; (2004) 7 SCC 27
7. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi
(2012) (9) SCC 685
8. State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal
1992 (Supl) (1) SCC 335
9. Puneet Sabharwal and another Vs. CBI; 2024
SCC OnLine SC 324
10. Superintendent of Police (CBI) VS. Deepak
Chowdhary and others; (1995) 6 SCC 225

List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act

List of Keywords
departmental inqury, same allegations/charges
is
exonerated,
continuation
of
criminal
prosecution, disproportionate income

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajrshi Gupta,
Sudhanshu Kumar;
Counsel for Party(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant
and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for
the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the impugned charge sheet No. 9 of
2023 dated 20.8.2023 as well as the entire
proceeding of criminal case No. 52/1652 of
2023-State Vs. Braham Singh (arising out
of case crime No. 281/2019, Police Station
Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar),
based on the impugned charge-sheet,
presently
pending
in
the
Court
of
Additional
District
&
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, Meerut, under Sections
13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988-Amended Act 2018
and the order dated 10.10.2023, passed by
Additional
District
&
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
Prevention
of
Corruption, Meerut by which the learned
Special Judge, has taken the cognizance
and issued process against the applicant, to
face trial, under section 13(1)b read with
13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
[Amendment Act 2018].

3. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the applicant and learned AGA
submitted that in the present matter, there is
no need to call counter affidavit as entire
relevant materials have already been
annexed alongwith the instant application
and therefore, instant application may be
heard and disposed off, finally.

4. In view of the above, with the
consent of parties the instant application is
being heard and disposed of without calling
counter and rejoinder affidavits.

Brief facts of the case:-

5. FIR of the present case was lodged
on 30.3.2019 against the applicant under
section 13(1)(e), 13(2) Prevention of
Corruption Act and according to the FIR,
applicant was posted as Assistant Manager,
Grade-II, Greater NOIDA, Development
Authority and from his known sources
during check period his income was Rs.
43,71,394.00/- but his expenditure during
9 All. Braham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
575
this period was Rs. 10395229.37/- and
therefore,
his
expenditure
is
disproportionate to his known income and
his expenditure was 137.80% higher than
his known income.

6. After registration of the FIR
investigation was conducted and during
investigation Investigating Officer found
that Vigilance Inquiry Report on the basis
of which FIR was lodged was correct and
expenditure of the applicant was in excess
of his known source of income during the
check period and thereafter he submitted
charge sheet against him on 20.8.2023
under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(1) (2)
Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. After submission of charge sheet
court concerned took the cognizance and
issued summons to the applicant.

8. Hence the instant application.

Submission made on behalf of the
applicant:-

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that by way of instant application
applicant is challenging the charge sheet
filed against him and entire proceeding of
the criminal case pending against him
solely on the ground that although as per
the prosecution expenditure of the applicant
was higher than his known source of
income during check period but on the
basis
of
the
same
allegation
when
departmental inquiry was conducted then in
the departmental inquiry he has been
exonerated.

10. He further submitted that from the
annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support
to the instant application it reflects, when
on
the
basis
of
the
complaint
a
departmental inquiry was conducted then
on 16.5.2018 i.e. well before lodgement of
the FIR, applicant has been exonerated. He
next submitted that from the inquiry report
dated 16.5.2018 it reflects during check
period when details of the property of the
applicant were verified through the last five
years ITR submitted by him then it was not
found that income of the applicant and his
expenditure were disproportionate.

11. He further submitted that after
above inquiry dated 16.5.2018 a second
departmental inqury was conducted and on
14.10.2019
General
Manager/Inquiry
Officer again found that on the basis of ITR
of
the
applicant
allegations
of
disproportionate income levelled against
him appears to be incorrect.

12. He further submitted that the
above inquiry report dated 14.10.2019 was
kept pending in the office of the Deputy
Secretary Industrial Development, U.P.
Lucknow for two years and thereafter show
cause notice was issued to the applicant and
ultimately
on
25.1.2022
departmental
disciplinary proceeding pending against
him was concluded and final departmental
inquiry report dated 25.1.2022 has been
annexed as annexure-15 to the affidavit
filed in support of the instant application.

13. He further submitted that even
from the final inquiry report dated
25.1.2022 it is apparent that the charges of
disproportionate income levelled against
the applicant were not found correct,
however,
Additional
Chief
Secretary
awarded penalty of censure punishment.

14. He further submitted that against
the
penalty
of
censure
punishment
applicant filed claim before State Public
Service Tribunal, Lucknow and vide order
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 17.5.2023 State Public Service
Tribunal, Lucknow allowed his claim
petition and even quashed the censure
punishment awarded to him. He next
submitted that therefore, in departmental
inqury applicant has been fully exonerated.

15.
He next
submitted
that
as
allegations against the applicant in the
instant matter and allegations against him
in the departmental inquiry are same and in
the departmental inquiry applicant has
already
been
exonerated
therefore,
continuation of criminal prosecution on the
basis of same allegations is nothing but
abuse of the process of law.

16. He further submitted that this issue
has come before the Apex Court in several
cases and Apex Court in these cases also
categorically held that if an accused in the
departmental inqury on the basis of same
allegations/charges
is
exonerated
then
criminal proceeding pending against him
on the basis of same allegation/charges
cannot be continued.

17.
He placed
reliance
on
the
following judgements of the Apex Court:-

a. P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar;
1996 (9) SCC 1

b. Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs.
State of West Bengal and another; 2011
(3) SCC 581; and

c. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
EOW, CBI & Anr.; 2020(9) SCC 636.

18. He next submitted that therefore,
charge sheet filed against the applicant in
the instant matter and criminal proceeding
pending against him is liable to be quashed.

Submission advanced by State:-

19. Per contra, learned AGA opposed
the prayer and submitted that in the present
case, as from the investigation conducted
by the Investigating Officer, prima facie, it
appears applicant is dishonest public
servant and his expenditures were very
high than his known source of income,
therefore, by filing the charge sheet against
him Investigating Officer did not commit
any illegality.

20. He further submitted that after
perusing the material annexed alongwith
the charge sheet court concerned also took
the cognizance and issued summons to the
applicant and therefore, it cannot be said
that cognizance and summoning order
passed by the court concerned is illegal.

21. He further submitted that criminal
proceeding pending against the accused
cannot be culminated on the ground that in
the departmental proceedings he has been
exonerated as standard of proof of both the
proceedings are entirely different.

22.
He
further
submitted
that
departmental/ civil proceedings are based
on preponderance of probabilities while
standard of proof in criminal charges is
beyond reasonable doubt which is solely
based upon the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and therefore, area of both the
proceedings are entirely different and both
the proceedings do not overlap each other
and therefore, exoneration in any of such
proceeding does not ipso facto entitles the
accused to either exonerate in departmental
proceeding or his acquittal in criminal
proceeding.

23. He further submitted that law is
settled that a criminal prosecution can only
be quashed if evidence collected by the
investigating officer during investigation
9 All. Braham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
does not disclose alleged offences and in
the instant case, from perusal of the charge
sheet, prima facie, it appears that charge
sheet discloses offences under sections
13(1)(b)
r/w
13(2)
Prevention
of
Corruption Act against the applicant and
therefore,
neither
charge
sheet
nor
proceeding pending against the applicant
can be quashed.

24. He next submitted that therefore,
the instant application filed by the applicant
is devoid of merit and it should be
dismissed.

Analysis

25. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record of the
case.

26. The sole issue before this Court in
the instant application is that if charge sheet
and evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation, prima facie,
discloses alleged offences against an
accused then whether chargesheet filed
against him and criminal proceeding
pending against him can be quashed on the
ground that he has been exonerated in the
departmental proceedings on the same set
of allegations/charges.

27. The criminal prosecution and
departmental proceeding hold two entirely
different
fields.
The
departmental
proceedings are based on preponderance of
probabilities while criminal prosecution is
based on evidence produced by the
prosecution during trial and standard to
prove a criminal charge is proof beyond
reasonable doubt and the departmental
proceedings relate to conduct of delinquent
officer to punish him for his misconduct
defined under statutory Rules or Law.
Therefore, even if an accused has been
exonerated in the department proceeding
then also it cannot be said that ipso facto
his criminal prosecution on the basis of
same charges cannot be continued.

28. The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh
Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi
Marwah and another (2005) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 370 although in different
context in para-32 observed as:-

"Coming to the last contention
that an effort should be made to avoid
conflict of findings between the civil and
criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out
that the standard of proof required in the
two proceedings are entirely different. Civil
cases are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence while in a
criminal case the entire burden lies on the
prosecution and proof beyond reasonable
doubt has to be given. There is neither any
statutory provision nor any legal principle
that
the
findings
recorded
in
one
proceeding may be treated as final or
binding in the other, as both the cases
have to be decided on the basis of the
evidence adduced therein......"

(Emphasis Supplied)

29. Again three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in case of Depot Manager
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Mhd. Yousuf Miya and others;
(1997) 2 SCC 699 in para-8 held that:-

"...The purpose of departmental
enquiry and of prosecution are two
different and distinct aspects. The criminal
prosecution is launched for an offence in
violation of a duty the offender owes to the
society or for breach of which law has
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provided that the offender shall make
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act
of commission in violation of law or of
omission of public duty. The departmental
enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service..."

30. Again Apex Court in case of State
Bank of India and others Vs. R.B.
Sharma; (2004) 7 SCC 27 in para-8
observed as:-

"...When
trial
for
criminal
offence is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offence as per
the evidence defined under the provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short
the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of
departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
departmental
proceedings
relates
to
conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent
officer to punish him for his misconduct
defined under the relevant statutory rules
or law. That the strict standard of proof or
applicability of the Evidence Act stands
excluded is a settled legal position..."

31. The similar issue whether if on
same charges, an offender has been
exonerated in the departmental inquiry then
criminal prosecution pending against him
on same charges can be quashed or not has
come up before three judges bench of Apex
Court in case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs.
Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) (9) SCC 685
and after elaborate discussion Apex Court
held that "it is well settled that the standard
of proof in a departmental proceeding is
lower than that of criminal prosecution. It
is equally well settled that the departmental
proceeding or for that matter criminal
cases have to be decided only on the basis
of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness
of the evidence in the criminal case can be
judged only after the evidence is adduced
therein and the criminal case cannot be
rejected on the basis of the evidence in the
departmental proceeding". The Apex Court
further observed that "we are, therefore, of
the opinion that the exoneration in the
departmental proceeding ipso facto would
not result in quashing of the criminal
prosecution".

(Emphasis Supplied)

32. Learned counsel for the applicant,
however, relied upon three judgements of
the Apex Court. Firstly, he placed reliance
on judgement of Apex Court passed in the
case of P.S. Rajya (supra).

33. From perusal of the judgement of
the Apex Court passed in the case of P.S.
Rajya (supra) it reflects that however,
Apex
Court
quashed
the
proceeding
pending against the petitioner and by
quashing the same Apex Court also
considered the inquiry report but from bare
perusal of the judgement of P.S. Rajya
(supra), it reflects that under peculiar facts
and circumstances of that case, Supreme
Court was pleased to quash the proceedings
after considering the judgement of the Apex
Court passed in the case of State of Haryana
and others Vs. Bhajan lal 1992 (Supl) (1)
SCC 335. Therefore, it reflects, facts of the
case of P.S. Rajya (supra) were entirely
different from the facts of the present case
and Supreme Court quashed the proceeding
after observing that on the peculiar facts of
the case the criminal proceeding initiated
against the applicant cannot be pursued.
Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the
applicant in the present case on the basis of
judgement of the Apex Court passed in the
case of P.S. Rajya (supra).

34. Second judgement was relied by
learned counsel for the applicant is the
9 All. Braham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579
judgement of Apex Court passed in the
case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra)
which is three judges bench judgement.
After perusing the judgement passed in
case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra), it
reflects that said case relates to the
provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, 1973 (in short, "FERA") and in that
case prosecution against the appellant was
launched under section 56 of FERA and
penalty proceeding was initiated under
section 51 of FERA and as appellant had
already
exonerated
in
the
penalty
proceeding
therefore,
Supreme
Court
quashed the criminal proceeding initiated
under section 56 of FERA.

35. From the facts of the case of
Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) it reflects
that the criminal prosecution for offence
under section 56 of FERA was connected
with the penalty proceeding initiated under
section 51 of FERA and as in penalty
proceeding appellant has been exonerated,
therefore, Supreme Court opined that
continuation of the criminal prosecution is
not permissible. Therefore, facts of the case
of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) were
also entirely different from the facts of the
present
case
which
is
a
case
of
disproportionate income.

36. Learned counsel for the applicant
also placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath
Tewari
(supra).
This
judgement is also passed by three judges
Bench of the Apex Court. In this case also
Apex Court on the basis of the report of
Chief Vigilance Commissioner quashed the
criminal prosecution pending against the
petitioner
but
this
case
is
also
distinguishable on facts. It reflects, in the
case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra)
concerned Sanctioning Authority denied
the sanction on the ground that there is no
evidence to support the prosecution case
and considering this fact, Apex Court
quashed the criminal prosecution.

37. In case at hand, admittedly,
sanctioning authority has already accord
sanction against the applicant after perusing
the material produced by the investigating
agency and therefore, no benefit can be
given to the applicant on the basis of the
judgement of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
(supra).

38. Recently the same issue has again
come up before the Apex Court in the case
of Puneet Sabharwal and another Vs.
CBI; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 324 and Apex
Court categorically observed that in so far
as the submission that where there is
exoneration in a civil adjudication criminal
proceeding on the same set of facts and
circumstances
cannot
be
allowed
to
continue is concerned, the same is also
without merit as far as the present case is
concerned. It is pertinent to note that Apex
Court in this case also discussed its earlier
judgements
passed
in
Radheshyam
Kejriwal
and
Ashoo
Surendranath
Tewari (supra) and distinguished them on
facts.

39. The Apex Court in the case of
Superintendent
of
Police
(CBI)
VS.
Deepak Chowdhary and others; (1995) 6
SCC 225 also held that on the basis of
exoneration in the departmental proceeding
by disciplinary authority criminal prosecution
cannot be quashed and further, held that what
is necessary and material is whether the facts
collected
during
investigation
would
constitute the offence or not.

40.
Therefore,
from
the
above
authorities it is apparent that even if an
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused has been exonerated in the
departmental proceeding on the basis of
same set of charges then also ipso facto his
criminal prosecution even on same charges
cannot be quashed.

41. Further, however, learned counsel for
applicant argued only above single point and
he did not argue that even from perusal of
material collected during investigation no
offence is made out against applicant but even
from the chargesheet, prima facie, it cannot be
said that alleged offences are not made out
against applicant.

42. Therefore, from the discussion made
above, in view of this Court, the charge-sheet
filed against applicant and proceedings of the
instant case pending against him can not be
quashed.

43. Accordingly, instant application
filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and
stands dismissed.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 580
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 31545 of 2024

Praveen Chetri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prashant Sharma, Surendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Requirement and relevance of mentioning the
caste of a suspect or a group of persons
named
in
an
FIR
or
during
a
police
investigation; legality of criminal proceedings.

Headnotes
Government
may
prepare
a
regulated
framework to regulate and amend the Central
Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR) -to explicitly ban
caste-based slogans and caste identifiers on all
private
and
public
vehicles-issue
uniform
circulars to RTOs and traffic departments across
the state -to enforce the removal of caste
signage and impose heavy fines -may set up a
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Mechanism
-
allegation- illegal smuggling of liquor across
state borders for financial gain- prima-facie case
is made out against the applicant - gang leader
involved in the smuggling of liquor-Directions to
the Government-Application dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
2. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 1992
Supp 3 SCC 217 (Para-339)
3. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,
(2008) 6 SCC 1
4. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal,
Criminal Appeal No.3168 of 2023 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11331 of 2019
5. Shama Sharma v. Kishan Kumar, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 88
6. State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Excise Act
Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Sharma,
Surendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Prashant Sharma and
Shri
Surendra
Pratap
Singh,
learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrit Raj
Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the Staterespondents, and perused the material on
record.