# Jai Ram Lal Verma v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 542
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-05
- **Case number:** Appl. U/s 482 No. 3088 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-ram-lal-verma-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47929
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 409,
420, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988-Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)-
quashing of- criminal proceedings on the
ground
that
in
the
departmental
proceedings
the
accused
has
been
exonerated-on allegation of commission
of offence, charge-sheet has been filed in
criminal conspiracy with co-accused to
cheat the government under MNREGS's
funds and in furtherance of the said
criminal conspiracy, he caused a wrongful
loss to the government exchequer to the
tune of Rs. 11,15,340/-the accused was
reinstated in service and retired from the
post of CDO-Adjudication proceedings by
the
Enforcement
Directorate
is
not
prosecution by a competent court of law
to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section 300 of Code of
Criminal Procedure-The finding in the
adjudication proceedings in favour of the
person facing trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature of finding-the
findings
against
the
person
facing
prosecution
in
the
adjudication
proceedings
is
not
binding
on
the
proceeding for criminal prosecution-Thus,
12 All. Jai Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P.
543
the
criminal
proceedings
cannot
be
quashed.(Para 1 to 25)

B. It is trite that the standard of proof
required in criminal proceedings is higher
than that required before adjudicating
authority and in case the accused is
exonerated
before
the
adjudicating
authority whether his prosecution on
same set of facts can be allowed or not is
the precise question which falls for
determination in this case.(Para 23)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hardship has been rightly answered against
the tenants by the Authorities below. Quite
apart, this Court in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution generally
ought not to interfere with concurrent
findings
of
fact
recorded
by
the
Authorities below, unless shown to be
perverse or manifestly illegal. That is not
the case here.

46. In the circumstances, this petition
fails and is dismissed.

47. The interim order is hereby
vacated.

48. However, considering the facts
that the tenants have been in occupation of
the demised shop for a considerable period
of time, they are allowed six months time
to handover peaceful and vacant possession
of the shop in dispute provided they
execute
an
undertaking
before
the
Prescribed Authority, Jalaun, embodying
the following terms within one month of
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order:

(1) The tenants shall handover
peaceful and vacant possession of the
demised shop to the landlord on or before
16.05.2023.

(2) During the period of six
months
that
the
tenants
remain
in
occupation, they will not sublet the shop,
damage or disfigure it in any manner
whatsoever.

49. In the event, an undertaking, as
above directed, is not filed before the
Prescribed Authority by the tenants within
the time allowed or undertaking is violated,
the release order shall become executable
forthwith.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 542
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 3088 of 2022

Jai Ram Lal Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Himanshu Raghave

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 409,
420, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988-Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)-
quashing of- criminal proceedings on the
ground
that
in
the
departmental
proceedings
the
accused
has
been
exonerated-on allegation of commission
of offence, charge-sheet has been filed in
criminal conspiracy with co-accused to
cheat the government under MNREGS's
funds and in furtherance of the said
criminal conspiracy, he caused a wrongful
loss to the government exchequer to the
tune of Rs. 11,15,340/-the accused was
reinstated in service and retired from the
post of CDO-Adjudication proceedings by
the
Enforcement
Directorate
is
not
prosecution by a competent court of law
to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section 300 of Code of
Criminal Procedure-The finding in the
adjudication proceedings in favour of the
person facing trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature of finding-the
findings
against
the
person
facing
prosecution
in
the
adjudication
proceedings
is
not
binding
on
the
proceeding for criminal prosecution-Thus,
12 All. Jai Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P.
543
the
criminal
proceedings
cannot
be
quashed.(Para 1 to 25)

B. It is trite that the standard of proof
required in criminal proceedings is higher
than that required before adjudicating
authority and in case the accused is
exonerated
before
the
adjudicating
authority whether his prosecution on
same set of facts can be allowed or not is
the precise question which falls for
determination in this case.(Para 23)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 57 ALR 290

2. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 3 ADJ 322 SC

3. Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs St. of W. B. & anr.
(2011) 3 SCC 581

4. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & anr.
(2020) 9 SCC 636

5. CBI Vs V.K. Bhutiani (2009) 10 SCC 674

6. St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs Ajay Kumar Tyagi
(2012) 9 SCC 685

7. Om Narayan Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. OnLine
(2020) AIR All 2702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Raghave,
learned counsel for the accused-applicant,
as well as Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent - Central
Bureau
of
Investigation
(hereinafter
referred to as the "CBI") and gone through
the record.

2. The present application under
Section 482 CrPC has been filed for
quashing of the proceedings in Criminal
Case No.342/2015, arising out of CBI Case
No.RC0062014A007, under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and
Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act")
(State Vs. Jairam Lal Verma and others),
pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge, A/C, CBI, Court No. 5, Lucknow.

3. Writ Petition No.12802 (M/B) of
2011 came to be filed by one public spirited
person, Mr. Sachchidanand Gupta, alleging
therein large scale financial bungling, gross
irregularities
and
misappropriation
of
Mahatma
Gandhi
National
Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter
referred to as the "MNREGS") funds in
several districts, including Mahoba by Block
Development Officers of four blocks, namely,
Charkhari, Kabrai, Jaitpur and Panwari in
connivance with the officers/officials of
Government of Uttar Pradesh and M/s Aman
Enterprises, Lucknow. It was held that M/s
Aman Enterprises, Lucknow supplied 247
canvas movable work-sheds wroth Rs.
46,95,964/- @ Rs. 19,012/- which was at
exorbitant price in four blocks of district
Mahoba and thereby a huge wrongly
pecuniary loss was caused to the government
exchequer and corresponding gain to the
government officials and private agencies
during the period 2007-2008 and 2009-2009.

4. This Court, vide order dated
31.01.2014, directed the CBI to register a
case and investigate the offence. Pursuant to
directions of this Court, the FIR in question
came to be registered by the CBI.

5. During the course of investigation,
the CBI found that the accused-applicant,
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who was posted as Chief Development
Officer in District Mahoba (since retired),
while functioning on the said post, entered
into criminal conspiracy with co-accused,
Raj Kamal Goyal, a private person, Anil
Kumar Jaiswal, the then Regional Manager,
Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh
Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
"UPUSSL"), Lucknow Regional Office,
Lucknow with an object to cheat the
government of the funds allocated under
the MNREGS and in furtherance of the said
conspiracy, they caused loss to the
government exchequer to the tune of Rs.
11,15,340/-

6. The CBI, in its investigation,
further
found
that
canvas
movable
worksheds form part of work-site facilities
which were to be provided by various
executive agencies at the place of execution
of works to give shade to the labourers as
per para 3.4.1 of Notification No.107/387/2006-8 NREGA dated 08.02.2007 issued
by
Rural
Development
Section-7
of
Government of Uttar Pradesh. These
canvas movable worksheds should have
been purchased by respective end user
agencies i.e. gram panchayats. The order
dated
01.08.2008
issued
by
the
Government of Uttar Pradesh specifically
prohibited district authorities from making
centralized purchase of such items.

7. Investigation, by the CBI, further
revealed that the UPUSSL is a co-operative
firm established under the Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, now
registered under Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 had issued circular
from time to time to lay down general
guidelines and circulars. Directions were
issued by UPUSSL, Head Office, Lucknow
vide Circular dated 21.12.2006 regarding
supply
of
different
materials
from
branches/depot of UPUSSL of entire Uttar
Pradesh.

8. It is important to note that District
Mahoba does not fall under the Lucknow
Regional Office of UPUSSL. The CBI, in
its investigation, found that the Regional
Branch of UPUSSL, situated at Lucknow,
in contravention to above noted Circular
dated 21.12.2006, suo moto offered to
supply canvas movable worksheds and
other work-site facilities under MNREGS
in District Mahoba vide their letter dated
15.03.2008, which was addressed to Chief
Development Officer, Mahoba. The rates
quoted were Rs. 16,900/- per piece of
canvas movable workshed of the dimension
10x12x7 feet (exclusive of taxes). It was
found that the aforementioned letter dated
15.03.2008 was handed over to the present
accused-applicant
by
co-accused,
Raj
Kamal Goyal on 28.03.2008. The present
accused-applicant
in
furtherance
to
criminal conspiracy with Raj Kamal Goyal
on the same day instructed PD, DRDA,
Mahoba for placing supply orders dated
28.03.2008
in
favour
of
UPUSSL,
Lucknow for centralized purchase of
canvas movable worksheds at district level
in utter violation of extant financial rules &
regulations
of
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh.
For
such
purchase,
tender
procedure ought to have been followed, but
the accused-applicant neither proceeded for
tender proceedings nor he got conducted
any market survey to ascertain the actual
price of canvas movable worksheds which
ultimately caused a wrongful loss to the
government exchequer to the tune of Rs.
11,15,340/-.

9. The CBI, after investigating the
offence, filed charge-sheet bearing no.2167
of 2015 on 31.08.2015 under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 468 and
12 All. Jai Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P.
545
471 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and
13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

10. The learned trial Court took
cognizance and issued summons vide order
dated 05.10.2015 to the accused-applicant
to appear and face rhe trial. The accusedapplicant did not appear in pursuance of the
summons issued and, therefore, nonbailable warrants of arrest dated 02.11.2015
were issued against the accused-applicant.

11. The accused-applicant filed 482
Application No.5606 of 2015 to quash the
charge-sheet as well as summoning order
dated
05.10.2015
and
order
dated
02.11.2015 by means of which non-bailable
warrants of arrest were issued. This Court
vide order dated 23.11.2015 disposed of the
said application with the direction to
Magistrate/Trial Court concerned to make
expeditious disposal of bail application
moved by the accused-applicant in the light
of principle laid down by the seven Judges
Bench of this Court in the case of
Amrawati & Anr Vs. State of U.P.
reported in [2004 (57) ALR 290] and
affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case
of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State
of U.P. reported in [2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC)] subject to condition that the accusedapplicant
shall
appear
before
Magistrate/Trial Court concerned within
one month from today and shall move bail
application in accordance with law.

12. The applicant was enlarged on
bail by this Court vide order dated
11.03.2016 passed in Bail No.377 of 2016

13. The discharge application moved
by the applicant under Section 227 of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") in
the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Lucknow
was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2016.
The said order, rejecting the discharge
application, was challenged before this
Court by way of filing Criminal Revision
No.11 of 2017, however, the same was
dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2017.

14. The learned trial Court has framed
charges vide order dated 20.02.2018 under
Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 409,
420, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2)
read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the PC Act
against the present accused-applicant and
co-accused, Anil Kumar Jaiswal.

15. Now, the present application has
been filed for quashing of the criminal
proceedings on the ground that in the
departmental proceedings the accusedapplicant
has
been
exonerated.
The
departmental proceedings were initiated
against the accused-applicant and chargesheet dated 16.04.2010 was issued by the
government. The inquiry officer submitted
the
inquiry
report
dated 04.08.2010,
exonerating the accused-applicant of all
charges.
The
accused-applicant
was
reinstated
in
service
by
Office
Memorandum issued by the Secretary,
Gramya Vikas dated 13.10.2010 and
thereafter he was transferred/posted as
Chief Development Officer, Santkabir
Nagar vide order dated 27.11.2010. The
accused-applicant had retired from the post
of Chief Development Officer, Santkabir
Nagar on 31.12.2011.

16. The learned counsel for the
accused-applicant has submitted that since
the accused-applicant was exonerated on
merit in the departmental proceedings,
initiated against him, the continuation of
the trial in pursuance to the charge-sheet
filed by the CBI would be an abuse of
process of the Court. To buttress his
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission, the learned counsel for the
accused-applicant has placed reliance on
the following judgments:-

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

ii. (2020) 9 SCC 636 (Ashoo
Surendranath
Tewari
Vs.
Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW,CBI and
another.

17. Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent - CBI has
submitted
that
the
departmental
proceedings and the impugned criminal
proceedings are entirely different in nature.
The departmental inquiry did not include
the offence under the IPC and PC Act. In
the
present
case,
on
allegation
of
commission of offence, charge-sheet has
been filed and the charges have been
framed against the accused-applicant that
he, in criminal conspiracy with co-accused,
Raj Kamal Goyal, a private person, and
Anil Kumar Jaiswal with an object to cheat
the government under MNREGS's funds
and in furtherance of the said criminal
conspiracy, he caused a wrongful loss to the
government exchequer to the tune of
Rs.11,15,340/-. It is further submitted that
there is enough evidence available against
the accused-applicant for commission of
the offence and the trial Court, after
considering the evidence on record, has
framed the charges.

18. The learned counsel for the
respondent - CBI has, therefore, submitted
that if the accused-applicant has been
exonerated in the departmental proceedings
it would itself not render the criminal
proceedings against the accused-applicant
invalid or abuse of process of the Court. It
is further submitted that the investigation
had revealed that on receipt of complaint of
irregularities in centralized purchase from
several
districts,
Mr. Anurag
Yadav,
Additional
Commissioner,
Rural
Development Department, Government of
U.P.,
Lucknow
vide
DO
Letter
No.790/NREGS-90/08 dated 28.05.2008
issued to all District Magistrates of Uttar
Pradesh highlighted about its seriousness.
By this letter, all the District Magistrates
were directed to furnish details of such
purchases made in their districts, if any, by
30.05.2008. The District Magistrates were
also directed to furnish information by
30.05.2008 in case no such purchases had
been made in the past.

19. The learned counsel for the
respondent - CBI has further submitted
that from the investigation it could be
revealed that decision to rescind the
supply order placed with UPUSSL was
prompted by such tough stand of State
Administration with regard to centralized
purchases. The accused, including the
present accused-applicant, got alarmed of
the events and promptly acted to rescind
the order issued for centralized purchases
by DRDA, Mahoba. It is also submitted
that no gram panchayats had issued
proposals for procurement of canvas
movable worksheds which was required as
per
MNREGA
Act,
Scheme
and
Guidelines and no purchase orders were
issued by any gram panchayats at any
point of time and supplies were imposed
upon them. The learned counsel for the
respondents
-
CBI
has,
therefore,
submitted that it is trite law that the
standard of proof in a departmental
proceeding, being based on preponderance
of probability, is somewhat lower than the
standard of proof in a criminal proceeding
where the case has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
12 All. Jai Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P.
547

20. The only question, which is
involved in the present case, is that whether
on the basis of exoneration in the
departmental proceedings, the criminal
proceedings ought to be quashed. The
Supreme Court in (2009) 10 SCC 674
(Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. K.
Bhutiani) has dealt with the issue and held
that the exoneration in the departmental
proceedings ipso facto would not result into
quashing of the criminal prosecution.
However, if the prosecution against an
accused is solely based on findings in the
departmental
proceedings
and
those
findings are set-aside by the superior
authority in hierarchy, the same very
foundation goes and prosecution may be
quashed. However, the same principle
would not apply in case the departmental
proceedings and the criminal proceedings
are held at two different entities and they
are not in the same hierarchy. In Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. K. Bhutiani's
case
(supra),
the
Central
Vigilance
Commission had almost exonerated the
delinquent employee and the High Court,
placing reliance on report of the Vigilance
Commission, had quashed the criminal
proceedings against V. K. Bhutiani, the
Supreme Court has held that the report of
Central Vigilance Commission may be a
relevant factor, but it cannot be held to be
"be all or end all" in the matter for
prosecuting accused persons of such
serious offence.

21. In the case reported in (2012) 9
SCC 685 (State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay
Kumar Tyagi), the Supreme Court has setaside the order of the High Court whereby the
criminal proceedings against an accused were
quashed on premise of accused-delinquent
had been exonerated in the departmental
proceedings. In paragraph-25 of the said
judgment, it has been held as under:-

"25. We are, therefore, of the
opinion
that
the
exoneration
in
the
departmental proceeding ipso facto would
not result in the quashing of the criminal
prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that
if the prosecution against an accused is solely
based on a finding in a proceeding and that
finding is set aside by the superior authority
in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and
the prosecution may be quashed. But that
principle will not apply in the case of the
departmental proceeding as the criminal trial
and the departmental proceeding are held by
two different entities. Further, they are not in
the same hierarchy."

22. This Court in the case reported in
AIR OnLine 2020 All 2702 (Om Narayan
Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) has held
that the two proceedings, criminal and
departmental, are entirely different. They
operate in different fields and they have
different objectives. In service jurisprudence,
the purpose of enquiry proceeding is to deal
with the delinquent employee departmentally
and impose penalty in accordance with the
service
rules.
The
rule,
relating
to
appreciation of evidence and proof in the two
proceedings, is also not similar. In criminal
law, burden of proof is on the prosecution to
prove the guilt without reasonable doubt, on
the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the
delinquent employee on a finding recorded
on the basis of preponderance of probability.
Paragraphs 23 to 29 of the said judgment,
which are relevant, are extracted hereunder.

"23. On having considered the
law, reverting to Ashoo Tiwari case relied
by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The
Supreme
Court
relying
on
Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal
and
another6
(for
short
''Radheyshyam Kejriwal case), set aside the
judgment of the High Court and Special
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judge and discharged the appellant from
the offence under the Penal Code. The
facts, therein, was that the employer SIDBI
did not consider it a fit case, consequently,
declined permission to prosecute the
appellant. The Chief Vigilance Commission
(CVC) after having gone through the
arguments put forth by the CBI and SIDBI
during the course of joint meeting was of
the opinion that the appellant may have
been negligent without any criminal
culpability.

24. In Radhey Shyam Kejriwal, the
adjudicating authority under the provisions of
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
was not convinced with the Enforcement
Directorate to impose penalty upon the
appellant. In other words, if the departmental
authorities
themselves,
in
statutory
adjudication
proceedings
recorded
a
categorical and an unambiguous finding that
there is no such contravention of the
provisions of the Act, it would be unjust for
such departmental authorities to continue with
the criminal prosecution and say that there is
sufficient material. It would be unjust and an
abuse of the process of the court to permit
Enforcement Directorate & Foreign Exchange
Regulatory Authority to continue with criminal
proceedings on the very same material.

25. After referring to various
decisions the Supreme Court culled out the
ratio of the decisions as follows:-

"38. The ratio which can be culled
out from these decisions can broadly be stated
as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and
criminal
prosecution
can
be
launched
simultaneously;

(ii)
Decision
in
adjudication
proceedings is not necessary before initiating
criminal prosecution;

(iii)
Adjudication
proceedings
and criminal proceedings are independent
in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the
person
facing
prosecution
in
the
adjudication proceedings is not binding on
the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by
the
Enforcement
Directorate
is
not
prosecution by a competent court of law to
attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;

(vi)
The
finding
in
the
adjudication proceedings in favour of 8 the
person facing trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature of finding. If
the
exoneration
in
adjudication
proceedings is on technical ground and not
on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration,
however, on merits where the allegation is
found to be not sustainable at all and the
person held innocent, criminal prosecution
on the same set of facts and circumstances
cannot be allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases."

26. The Court finally concluded:

"39. In our opinion, therefore, the
yardstick would be to judge as to whether
the
allegation
in
the
adjudication
proceedings as well as the proceeding for
prosecution is identical and the exoneration
of the person concerned in the adjudication
proceedings is on merits. In case it is found
on merit that there is no contravention of
the provisions of the Act in the adjudication
proceedings, the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse of the process
of the court."

27. In nutshell, to recapitulate, in
Radhey Shaym Kejriwal, the statutory
adjudicating authority did not find prima
facie case to impose penalty for violation of
the Act. The prosecution based on the same
material was held unjustified and abuse of
the process of the Court. In Ashoo Tiwari,
12 All. Jai Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P.
549
CVC agreed with the competent authority
of SIDBI, after hearing the CBI, that
complicity and culpability of the appellant
was not found. The Court relying on para
38(vii) of Radhey Shaym Kejriwal and
having regard to the detail CVC order was
of the considered opinion that the "chances
of conviction in a criminal trial involving
the same facts appear to be bleak".

28. Both the decisions were
decided on the peculiar facts arising
therein, the decisions do not lay down any
proposition
that
exoneration
of
an
employee in departmental disciplinary
proceedings, the criminal prosecution on
the identical charge or evidence has to be
quashed automatically.

29. Even otherwise in a case were
acquittal of the employee by the criminal
court is concerned it does not preclude the
employer from taking disciplinary action if it
is
otherwise
permissible.
The
two
proceedings, criminal and departmental, are
entirely different. They operate in different
fields and have different objectives. In service
jurisprudence, the purpose of enquiry
proceeding is to deal with the delinquent
employee departmentally and impose penalty
in accordance with the service rules. The rule
relating to appreciation of evidence and proof
in the two proceedings is also not similar. In
criminal law burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt. "without
reasonable doubt", on the other hand, penalty
can be imposed on the delinquent employee
on a finding recorded on the basis of
"preponderance
of
probability"
(ReferAvinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) through legal
heirs Vs. Union of India7, G.M. Tank Versus
State of Gujarat and others8; Depot
Manager,
A.P.
State
Road
Transport
Gorakhpur Vs. Mohd. Yusuf Miya)."

23. In Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State
of West Bengal and another case (supra), it
has been held that the standard of proof in a
criminal case is much higher than that of the
adjudication proceedings under the PMLA
and if the Enforcement Directorate had not
been able to prove its case in the adjudication
proceedings and the appellant has been
exonerated on the same allegation, the
determination of the facts in adjudication
proceedings could not be said to be irrelevant
in the criminal case. Paragraphs 26, 29 and
31 of the said judgment, which have been
relied on in the judgment in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath
Tewari
Vs.
Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW,CBI and
another (supra), are extracted hereunder:-

"26. We may observe that the
standard of proof in a criminal case is
much higher than that of the adjudication
proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate
has not been able to prove its case in the
adjudication proceedings and the appellant
has
been
exonerated
on
the
same
allegation. The appellant is facing trial in
the criminal case. Therefore, in our
opinion, the determination of facts in the
adjudication proceedings cannot be said to
be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N.
Kashyap the Full Bench had not considered
the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case
over the criminal cases and that will be
evident from the following passage of the
said judgment :(AIR p.27)

".....I must, however, say that in
answering the question, I have only
referred to civil cases where the actions are
in personam and not those where the
proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether
a finding of fact arrived at in such
proceedings or actions would be relevant in
criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to
decide in this case. When that question
arises for determination, the provisions of
Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to
be carefully examined."
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. We do not have the slightest
hesitation
in
accepting
the
broad
submission of Mr. Malhotra that the finding
in an adjudication proceeding is not
binding in the proceeding for criminal
prosecution. A person held liable to pay
penalty in adjudication proceedings cannot
necessarily be held guilty in a criminal
trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided
on the basis of preponderance of evidence
of a little higher degree whereas in a
criminal case the entire burden to prove
beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the
prosecution.

31. It is trite that the standard
of proof required in criminal proceedings
is higher than that required before
adjudicating authority and in case the
accused
is
exonerated
before
the
adjudicating
authority
whether
his
prosecution on same set of facts can be
allowed or not is the precise question
which falls for determination in this
case."

24. In paragraph-38 of the judgment
in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal and another case (supra), the ratio
has been culled out from various decisions
in respect of adjudication proceedings
under the PMLA and criminal prosecution,
which reads as under:-

"38. The ratio which can be
culled out from these decisions can broadly
be stated as follows :-

(i) Adjudication proceedings and
criminal prosecution can be launched
simultaneously;

(ii)Decision
in
adjudication
proceedings
is
not
necessary
before
initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii)
Adjudication
proceedings
and criminal proceedings are independent
in nature to each other;

(iv)The finding against the person
facing prosecution in the adjudication
proceedings
is
not
binding
on
the
proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by
the
Enforcement
Directorate
is
not
prosecution by a competent court of law to
attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;

(vi)The
finding
in
the
adjudication proceedings in favour of the
person facing trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature of finding. If
the
exoneration
in
adjudication
proceedings is on technical ground and not
on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration,
however, on merits where allegation is
found to be not sustainable at all and the
person held innocent, criminal prosecution
on the same set of facts and circumstances
can not be allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases.

25. Thus, it is important to mention
here that Radheshyam Kejriwal was not a
case of departmental proceedings and
criminal proceedings, but it was the case of
adjudication proceedings under the PMLA
and criminal proceedings against the
person. In adjudication proceedings under
the PMLA, it is the specialized Court of
competent jurisdiction which evaluates the
evidence in respect of adjudication and
then records its findings. However, in the
departmental proceedings, it is a trained
judicial mind which records the finding of
guilt or exoneration. The findings of
disciplinary authority or inquiry officer are
based on preponderance of probability. I
am of the view that the judgment in
Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal and another's case (supra) cannot
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
551
be
of
any
application
wherein
the
delinquent employee gets exonerated in
departmental proceedings and he is facing
departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings.

26. In view thereof, I am of the view
that the whole premise of the learned
counsel for the accused-applicant that since
the accused-applicant has been acquitted in
the departmental proceedings, the criminal
proceedings are to be quashed, has no merit
and substance and, thus, this application is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 551
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 8755 of 2022

Praveen Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Vivek Chaubey

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sri Amit Rai, Sri Atharva Dixit, Sri Aushim
Luthra, Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Yadav, Sri Manish Kumar Vikkey, Sri Rajiv
Nanda, Sr. Advocate

A. Criminal Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 326, 307,
323,
324,
504
&
506-Quashing
of
summoning order-In the present case,
opposite party has not approached the
Court with clean hands-initially agreeing
amicably
settle
the
disputes,
later
changed his stand, exerted pressure
upon the Court to decide the matter
finally and approached the Apex Court
without waiting for final decision in the
matter-applicants who are victimized on
false accusations due to personal grudge
of opposite party who managed the FIR
and other documents at Bijnor while he
was present at Dehradun-FIR had been
lodged for settling money dispute-Thus,
it is a fit case for exercising power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. keeping in mind that no
greater damage can be done to the
reputation of a person than dragging
him in a criminal cases, continuance of
prosecution would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law.(Para 1 to 84)

B. It is settled canon of law that the
Court has inherent powers to prevent
the abuse of its own processes, that this
Court shall not suffer a litigant utilizing
the institution of justice for unjust
means. Thus, it would be only proper for
the Court to deny any relief to a litigant
who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice by coming to it with his unclean
hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing
frivolous
and
vexatious
proceedings
cannot claim unlimited right upon court
time and public money to achieve his
ends.(Para 79)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. St. of M.P. Vs Kalyan Singh (2019) 4 SCC 268

2. Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Koley
&ors. (2011) 3 SCC 351

3. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019) 5
SCC 688

4. Chandran Ratnaswami Vs K.C. Palanisamy
(2011) 3 SCC 351

5. Rajesh Tiwari & ors. Vs Nandkishor Roy
(2010) 8 SCC 442

6. Dr. Monica Kumar & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2008) AIR SCW 4618

7. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. (1960) 3 SCR 388