# Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 542
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14349 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49470
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 409 - Criminal breach of
trust by public, servant or by banker,
merchant or agent, Section 419 - cheating
by personation , Section 420 - Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery
of
property

-
misappropriated/usurped
money - Corruption by public officers in
execution
of
schemes
for
rural
development in India - efficiency and
accuracy of writing a FIR are of utmost
importance - profound impact on the
administration
of
justice
and
the
safeguarding of individuals' rights - wellwritten
FIR
should
encompass
all
essential details, including date, time,
location, nature of the offence, names and
addresses of the parties involved and a
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
statement of the complainant forming
ingredients of cognizable offence - albeit
the FIR is not an encyclopaedia disclosing
all the facts and details relating to the
offence. (Para -12)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 154,156,157 -
The
U.P.
Police
Regulations,
1861-
Regulation
122
-
Completion
of
Investigation and submission of final
report or charge sheet should be as soon
as possible - Section 154 of the Criminal
Code, in unequivocal terms, mandates
registration of FIR on receipt of all
cognizable
offences,
subject
to
exceptions in which case a preliminary
inquiry is required - FIR can be quashed
in certain circumstances, and these
circumstances include cases where the
FIR is found to be an abuse of the legal
process,
registered
with
ulterior
motives, or where it does not disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence -
FIR
lodged
to
settle
personal
or
commercial vendettas without involving
larger public interests can be considered
for quashing. (Para -14, 17)

Quashing of FIR - Stay of arrest - registration
of impugned FIR - challenged on technical
grounds - Project Director conducted an
inquiry - before registering a FIR against
petitioners - alleging forged and fabricated
documents - for misappropriation of Rs.
15,57,790 - causing financial loss to public
exchequer - FIR by Block Development Officer
- irregularities committed by government
officers while implementing MANREGA scheme
- based on deliberations of meeting - report
forwarded to Chief Development Officer -
revealing certain irregularities in execution of
work - forged muster rolls, work guidelines
violations, improper fund release, and alleged
illegal gains by petitioners in collusion -
committee recommended the registration of a
FIR. (Para - 11, 33, 34, 35)

HELD:- FIR's contents indicates a prima facie
commission of a cognizable offences at its face
value against the petitioners , including creating
forged documents for approval, violating work
rules, and releasing funds without proper
authorization. Investigating Officer to conduct a
prompt investigation in the interest of State's policy
dealing in corruption cases.(Para - 37, 39)

Writ Petition's dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being no specific proforma provided for
seeking such permission or the order,
which is required to be passed for the
purpose of allowing such application, we
are of the opinion that this was sufficient
compliance of the law as laid down by
various judgments stating from Ram Lal
Narang (supra) onwards, which is based
on long accepted practice of moving such
application before the court.

35. To our mind as the police report
has already been submitted, the object of
filing such application is that the court must
be
aware
of
the
fact
that
further
investigation has been directed in the
matter.

36. Needless to reiterate that as per
settled law further investigation is in
continuation of the initial investigation and
is different from re-investigation, fresh or
de-novo investigation which can only be
ordered by higher constitutional courts.

37. In such view of the matter, we are
of the opinion that there is no illegality in
the order dated 6.12.2022 and this was very
well
within
the
powers
of
the
Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar as
per settled law. We may also take note that
challenge to the impugned order was raised
on the ground that after passing of this
order the procedure to obtain permission of
the court was not adopted, which in our
mind, was fully complied with as there is
no requirement of law to obtain or even to
grant such permission in any particular
manner.

38. At this stage, we may also take
note of the fact that after investigation a
supplementary charge-sheet no. 147 dated
19.7.2023 by the Inspector, Crime Branch
has already been submitted.

39. In such view of the matter, there is
no illegality in the said order dated
06.12.2022. Hence, the instant writ petition
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 542
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14349 of 2023
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14783 of 2023
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14459 of 2023

Manish Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, Sri Kumar Gaurav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.,Sri Purushottam Upadhyay, Sri Suraj
Kumar

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 409 - Criminal breach of
trust by public, servant or by banker,
merchant or agent, Section 419 - cheating
by personation , Section 420 - Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery
of
property

-
misappropriated/usurped
money - Corruption by public officers in
execution
of
schemes
for
rural
development in India - efficiency and
accuracy of writing a FIR are of utmost
importance - profound impact on the
administration
of
justice
and
the
safeguarding of individuals' rights - wellwritten
FIR
should
encompass
all
essential details, including date, time,
location, nature of the offence, names and
addresses of the parties involved and a
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
statement of the complainant forming
ingredients of cognizable offence - albeit
the FIR is not an encyclopaedia disclosing
all the facts and details relating to the
offence. (Para -12)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 154,156,157 -
The
U.P.
Police
Regulations,
1861-
Regulation
122
-
Completion
of
Investigation and submission of final
report or charge sheet should be as soon
as possible - Section 154 of the Criminal
Code, in unequivocal terms, mandates
registration of FIR on receipt of all
cognizable
offences,
subject
to
exceptions in which case a preliminary
inquiry is required - FIR can be quashed
in certain circumstances, and these
circumstances include cases where the
FIR is found to be an abuse of the legal
process,
registered
with
ulterior
motives, or where it does not disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence -
FIR
lodged
to
settle
personal
or
commercial vendettas without involving
larger public interests can be considered
for quashing. (Para -14, 17)

Quashing of FIR - Stay of arrest - registration
of impugned FIR - challenged on technical
grounds - Project Director conducted an
inquiry - before registering a FIR against
petitioners - alleging forged and fabricated
documents - for misappropriation of Rs.
15,57,790 - causing financial loss to public
exchequer - FIR by Block Development Officer
- irregularities committed by government
officers while implementing MANREGA scheme
- based on deliberations of meeting - report
forwarded to Chief Development Officer -
revealing certain irregularities in execution of
work - forged muster rolls, work guidelines
violations, improper fund release, and alleged
illegal gains by petitioners in collusion -
committee recommended the registration of a
FIR. (Para - 11, 33, 34, 35)

HELD:- FIR's contents indicates a prima facie
commission of a cognizable offences at its face
value against the petitioners , including creating
forged documents for approval, violating work
rules, and releasing funds without proper
authorization. Investigating Officer to conduct a
prompt investigation in the interest of State's policy
dealing in corruption cases.(Para - 37, 39)

Writ Petition's dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I. , (2021) 1 SCC 1

2. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. Of U.P. & ors. , (2008)
14 SCC 337

3. CBI Vs Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175

4. St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.,
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335

5. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I., (1978) 1 SCC 248

6. Hussainara Khatoon Vs St. of Bihar, (1980) 1
SCC 81

7. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak, (1992)
1 SCC 225

8. P. Ramachandra Rao Vs St. of Karn. , (2002)
4 SCC 578

9. Dilawar Vs St. of Har., (2018) 16 SCC 521

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

1. We have heard Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,
along with Shri Kumar Gaurav, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh
Kumar Madhesia, learned State Law
Officer, for the State-respondents.

2. The present petitions have arisen
from the impugned First Information
Report dated 21.08.2023, registered as
Case Crime No.178 of 2023, under sections
409, 419, 420 IPC at Police Station-
Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, in which the
petitioners, namely Manish Kumar Singh,
Smt. Pushpa Devi, Jawahar Lal and Vinod
Kumar Saroj have been arrayed as accused
along with one Sanjay Kumar Chauhan-
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who has not come before this Court. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the registration
of the impugned FIR and, therefore,
approached
this
Court
with
twofold
prayers: (i) quashing the impugned FIR and
(ii) a stay of arrest.

3. The prosecution case is that on the
complaint of some public representatives,
the District Administration noticed certain
irregularities in constructing Amrit Sarovar
in District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh- A
Central Government initiative to construct
ponds in rural areas of India. On receipt of
a complaint (reference may be invited to
Annexure-5) of the Project Director,
District
Rural
Development
Agency
(DRDA), District Jaunpur, a three-member
committee comprising (i) Project Director,
DRDA (ii) Assistant Engineer, Minor
Irrigation
Department
(iii)
Mining
Inspector was constituted to look into the
irregularities flagged in the preliminary
enquiry. The Project Director completed the
inquiry and observed that the thenconcerned Secretary, Pradhan, Assistant
Programme Officer (APO), Lekhakar and
Rojgar Sewak were found involved in the
execution
of
work
amounting
to
Rs.15,57,790/- in defiance of the provisions
of
Mahatma
Gandhi
National
Rural
Employment
Guarantee
Act,
2005
(MGNREGA). Based on the finding of the
Inquiry Committee dated 19.08.2023, the
impugned FIR was registered against the
petitioners.

4. The gist of the submissions raised
by the respective counsel for the petitioners
are as follows; that the Project Director,
DRDA,
has
falsely
implicated
the
petitioners, who were inimical with Manish
Kumar Singh, who had made a complaint
dated 22.06.2023 to C.D.O. Jaunpur against
him. The petitioners are innocent, and no
offence, as alleged in the impugned FIR, is
made out against the petitioners. The
allegations
are
inherently
unreliable,
manufactured and have no iota of truth. He
further
contends
that
the
Inquiry
Committee Report dated 19.08.2023 is
vitiated under the law because of the
accentuate reasons: (i) all three members
have not signed the report; (ii) the Inquiry
Officer concluded the report within 24
hours without obtaining the signature of
Assistant Engineer, who was one of the
members of Inquiry Committee; (iii) no
show cause notice was given to the
petitioners, or no technical assistance was
obtained by the Inquiry Committee besides
other reasons as thus mentioned in the
grounds of the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that: (i) the petitioner-
Manish Kumar Singh- in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.14349 of 2023 has no role
in the commission of the alleged offence as
his job was to supervise the work and
submitting work reports to P.O./B.D.O. The
petitioner has no power to forward a
proposal to sanction the project; (ii) In the
case of petitioner Pushpa Devi, she was the
Pradhan
of
village
Pyarepur,
BlockSujanganj,
District
Jaunpur,
whereas,
petitioner- Jawahar Lal was the Gram
Rojgar Sewak- both are petitioners in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14783 of
2023, and has no role in the execution of
the work and release of payments, (iii)
Petitioner-Vinod
Kumar
Saroj-
sole
petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.14459
of
2023
was
Village
Development Officer of Block Sujanganj
and, as such, had no role in alleged
financial and procedural irregularities.

6. Shri Suraj Kumar, learned counsel
for the Caveator, has put in an appearance
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
on behalf of the villagers- the aggrieved
party. The counsel for the petitioners
vehemently opposed the appearance of Shri
Suraj Kumar, but we deemed it appropriate
not to give much importance to such
objections
by
the
counsel
for
the
petitioners, as things speak for themselves
in such cases and we are of the opinion that
his assistance is not required at this stage.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits
that while working as a public servant, the
petitioners, in collusion with each other,
have usurped an amount of Rs.15,57,790/-
after preparing forged documents. In the
inquiry conducted by the Project Director,
the petitioners have been, prima facie,
found
involved
in
creating
forged
documents and executed the work in
violation of the MGNREGA Scheme.
Learned AGA further submits that JCB
machines and tractors did the digging of the
pond in violation of the MGNREGA
guidelines, the financial approval for the
said project was found to be fake and was
against the rules, the concerned work was
not found endorsed on the muster roll, the
Gram Rojgar Sewak did not countersign
the muster role and the Block Development
Officer informed that the file was not
placed before him for approval and
sanction of the project.

8. Learned A.G.A. further contends
that the impugned FIR was registered on
21.08.2023, and thus, the investigation is at
the nascent stage. The misappropriated/
usurped money is yet to be recovered, if
any, and the Investigating Officer shall also
ascertain the role of other suspects. Before
delving into the particulars of the present
case, it is prudent to engage in a thoughtful
discourse regarding the ramifications of
corruption within government-administered
programs
designed
to
aid
socioeconomically disadvantaged segments of
society

9. Corruption by public officers in the
execution of schemes for rural development
in India, particularly in the context of a
programme
like
MGNREGA,
has
significant
effects
on
the
intended
outcomes and the well-being of the rural
population. The central idea of giving work
to the labourer is to create employment
with the intended objectives of poverty
alleviation
and
rural
infrastructure
development. The corrupt officials who
engage in fraudulent activities make it
difficult to trace the flow of funds and
resources if investigations are delayed.

10. Corruption in such schemes
erodes the trust of the rural population in
government
institutions
and
schemes.
When people perceive that these programs
are riddled with corruption, they may
become less willing to participate, reducing
the effectiveness of these initiatives desired
outcome may not be achieved.

11. Nevertheless, the petitioner has
challenged the registration of impugned FIR
against the public servant on technical
grounds, specifically related to the nature of
the job and task assigned to the public
servants, as well as the process followed for
awarding the work and granting approval for
the disbursement of funds to the labourers.
Additionally, other grounds have also been
raised in their respective petitions. At this
stage, it's instructive to relook at the law
settled by the Supreme Court in numerous
cases pertaining to quashing of FIR. For the
sake of clarity, we would revisit certain
judgments in this regard.

12. The efficiency and accuracy of
writing a FIR are of utmost importance
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because it can have a profound impact on
the administration of justice and the
safeguarding of individuals' rights. It is
indeed settled that a well-written FIR
should encompass all essential details,
including date, time, location, nature of the
offence, names and addresses of the parties
involved
and
a
statement
of
the
complainant
forming
ingredients
of
cognizable offence, albeit the FIR is not an
encyclopaedia disclosing all the facts and
details relating to the offence.

13. The acronym FIR, or the First
Information Report, is neither defined in
the Code of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
Criminal Code) nor used therein, although
it refers to the information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence. This
information, if given orally to an officer in
charge of the police station, is mandated to
be reduced in writing. Information to be
recorded in writing need not be necessarily
by an eye-witness and, hence, cannot be
rejected merely because it is hearsay.
Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not mandate nor is
this requirement manifest from other
provisions of the Criminal Code. Further,
FIR is not meant to be a detailed document
containing a chronicle of all intricate and
minute details1.

14. In Lalita Kumari2, a Constitution
Bench of 5-judges of this Court has held
that Section 154 of the Criminal Code, in
unequivocal terms, mandates registration of
FIR on receipt of all cognizable offences,
subject to exceptions in which case a
preliminary
inquiry
is
required.
The
Constitution Bench referring to the decision
of this Court in Tapan Kumar Singh3
reiterated
that
the
FIR
is
not
an
encyclopaedia disclosing all facts and
details relating to the offence. The
informant who lodges the report of the
offence may not even know the name of the
victim or the assailant or how the offence
occurred. He need not necessarily be an
eye-witness. What is essential is that the
information must disclose the commission
of
a
cognizable
offence,
and
the
information must provide the basis for the
police officer to suspect the commission of
the offence. Thus, at this stage, it is enough
for the police officer, on receipt of the
information, suspects- though he may not
be convinced or satisfied- that a cognizable
offence
has
been
committed,
for
registration of FIR.

15. Truthfulness of the information
would be a matter of investigation, and
only there upon the police can report on the
truthfulness or otherwise. Importantly, in
Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), it was held
that even if the information does not
furnish all details, the investigating officer
must find out those details during the
investigation
and
collect
necessary
evidence. Thus, the information disclosing
the commission of a cognizable offence
only sets in motion the investigating
machinery to collect the necessary evidence
and, after that, act according to the law.

16. The true test for a valid FIR, as
laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra), is
whether the information furnished provides
reason to suspect the commission of an
offence to the police officer concerned,
who is empowered under Section 156(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to
investigate. The questions as to whether the
report is true, whether it discloses full
details regarding the manner of occurrence,
whether the accused is named, or whether
there is sufficient evidence to substantiate
the allegation are unrelated to determining
whether
the
report
discloses
the
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547
commission of a cognizable offence. As per
clauses (1) (b) and (2) of Section 157 of the
Criminal Code, a police officer may
foreclose an FIR before investigation, if it
appears to him that no ground is made out
at its face value to investigate. At the initial
stage of the registration of FIR, the law
mandates that the officer can start an
investigation when he has reason to suspect
the commission of the offence. The
requirements outlined in Section 157 are
higher than the requirements of Section 154
of the Code. Further, a police officer in a
given case, after investigation, can file a
final report seeking closure of the matter.

17. In Bhajan Lal4, the Supreme
Court formulated guidelines to ensure that
the power to quash FIR is exercised
sparingly and judiciously by the High
Courts and the Supreme Court to prevent
the misuse of the legal process and protect
individuals from vexatious and malicious
prosecution. FIR can be quashed in certain
circumstances, and these circumstances
include cases where the FIR is found to be
an abuse of the legal process, registered
with ulterior motives, or where it does not
disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. It's crucial to consider whether the
allegations, even when taken at face value,
do not constitute an offence. Additionally,
FIR
lodged
to
settle
personal
or
commercial vendettas without involving
larger public interests can be considered for
quashing. Bhajan Lal (supra) has been a
significant reference point in criminal
jurisprudence when it comes to the
quashing of FIR.

18. In consideration of the judgments
discussed above, we express our concern
regarding the frequent filing of frivolous
petitions in this Court. These petitions even
arise when preliminary inquiries are
conducted by the department against errant
government
officers,
leading
to
the
registration
of
FIRs.
Unfortunately,
investigations tend to languish for an
extended period, which is detrimental to the
administration of criminal justice. Such
petitions are often filed either immediately
after the FIR is registered, as in the present
case, or when investigations are needlessly
prolonged.
This
Court's
docket
is
consistently filled with such frivolous cases
on a daily basis.

19. Such matters have serious
ramification on government institutions and
society as a whole. An FIR based on a
preliminary enquiry conducted by the
government
department
helps
speedy
investigation, especially when prepared and
lodged by government officers who are
expected to have a good understanding of
the law and, if not, have access to a
dedicated cadre of prosecutors, along with
experienced
investigators,
which
is
essential for establishing a fair and efficient
criminal justice system. This system should
meet the requirements of the public
expectation and uphold the fundamental
principles of justice and accountability.

20. The essence of the rule of law
vitality is grounded in the distinctive
synergy
between
administrative
accountability
and
active
court
engagement. As the judiciary navigates the
intricate legal terrain inherent in the
administration of justice, it becomes
manifest
that
the
robustness
of
accountability mechanisms and the vitality
of court engagement are imperative for the
flourishing of the rule of law, harmonized
with constitutional morality.

21. In the context of fostering the rule
of law, the courts play a pivotal role as they
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inspire the confidence of the common man
in
establishing
a
transparent
and
accountable government. However, it is
crucial
to
acknowledge
that
the
responsibility to nurture and safeguard
democratic principles extends beyond the
judiciary to encompass all branches of the
government. The interplay among these
organs of the state is instrumental in
cultivating the common man's faith in the
principles of good governance. Therefore,
the vitality of the rule of law is contingent
upon
the
collaborative
efforts
and
commitment of all government branches to
uphold accountability, transparency and
constitutional
morality,
making
the
foundation
for
just
and
accountable
administration.

22. We have also observed that
following registration of the FIR by the
government department, the investigations
often linger for years, affording the accused
the chance to tamper with the evidence or
providing opportunities for the accused/
suspects to obstruct the course of justice.
Work efficiency and work culture also
adversely
affect
in
the
government
department
because
of
long
pending
investigations. The consequences of delay in
the investigation may lead to loss of
evidence, injustice to the victim, increased
costs, public distrust; suspects may have the
opportunity to commit repeated crimes, to
more individuals at least, excessive pre-trial
detention, injustice to victims and may also
compromise the fairness of the trial. In
essence, expeditious and effective police
investigations are essential for safeguarding
society, ensuring justice, and upholding
principles of natural justice. Therefore, efforts
to improve the efficiency of investigation and
reduce delays are crucial for maintaining the
integrity and effectiveness of administration
of the criminal justice system.

23. It is not necessary to refer to all
Supreme Court's decisions articulating the
Constitution's mandate that there is an
implicit right under Article 21 for speedy
trial,
which
encompasses
speedy
investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and
retrial. To determine whether the undue
delay has occurred, one must have regard
to the nature of the offence, the number of
persons
involved
both
accused
and
prosecution
witnesses,
the
role
of
investigating
agency
besides
other
procedural and incidental factor. Inordinate
delay may be taken as presumptive proof of
prejudice, particularly when the accused is
in custody so that prosecution does not
become persecution. The court has to
balance and weigh several relevant factors.
Though it is neither advisable nor feasible
to prescribe any mandatory outer time
limit, and the Court may only examine the
effect of delay in every individual case on
the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution,
there is certainly a need to address these
issues by way of an in-house mechanism to
ensure that there is no undue delay in
completing
the
investigation.
This
obligation flows from the law laid down by
Supreme Court inter alia in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India5, Hussainara
Khatoon v. State of Bihar6, Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak7, P. Ramachandra
Rao v. State of Karnataka8 and Dilawar v.
State of Haryana9.

24. Nonetheless, there is no specific
stipulated timeframe for the investigation
of criminal cases. However, prolonged
investigations can potentially undermine
the rule of law, particularly in cases
involving government officers who are
entrusted with the responsibility of carrying
out their official duties deligently honestly
and fearlessly, yet have been found to be
involved
in
widespread
corruption.
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
Therefore, there is a compelling need to
establish a clear timeline for the completion
of investigations to uphold the principles
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

25. For the sake of clarity and
understanding, Regulation 122 of the U.P.
Police Regulations, 1861 is provided
below:

"122. Completion of Investigation
and submission of final report or charge
sheet should be as soon as possible.- (i) An
investigation should be completed as soon
as possible, and when complete, the
investigating officer must comply with the
provisions of Sections 161-171 and 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974). The report prescribed by Section
173 must under that section be submitted
by the officer in charge of the police station
under intimation to the Superintendent of
Police and should be in the form of chargesheet (Police Form No. 339), if the case is
sent for trial and in the form of final report
(Police Form No. 340), if the case is not
sent for trial. The charge-sheet with the
final diary in the cases shall be submitted
to the Court through the Circle Officer and
the Public Prosecutor and should reach the
Court within four weeks of the date of
lodging of the first information report in
summons and warrants cases and eight
weeks in Sessions cases. None of the Circle
Officer and the Public Prosecutor should
normally retain the charge-sheet for more
than a week and the latter should submit it
to the Court concerned within the timelimit. The prescribed time-limit should not
be allowed to exceed except for very
special reasons.

(ii) As soon as possible but in any
case not later than a month of the expiry of
each quarter, the Superintendent of Police
shall submit to the District Magistrate, in
the prescribed form and in duplicate, a
quarterly list of cases in which chargesheet could not be submitted within the
prescribed time-limit of 4/8 weeks. The
District Magistrate will forward it to the
Range Deputy Inspector General of Police,
endorsing
the
other
copy
with
his
comments to the Commissioner of the
Division. The Range Deputy Inspector
General of Police will thereupon compile in
the prescribed form, a statement of delayed
cases and submit it to the Inspector
General of Police who will forward the
same to Government in Home Department
(Police A) with his comments.

(iii) The final report must in all
cases
be
submitted
through
the
Superintendent of Police.

(iv) The information as the result
of the investigation must, as required by
Section 173 (i) (b), Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), be sent by the
officer in charge of the police station to the
complainant if any in Police Form No. 47,
at the time he submits the charge-sheet or
the final report, as the case may be."

26. In light of this context, this Court
direct the State Government to constitute a
High-Powered Committee, comprising of
Chief Secretary, as its chairperson, to
conduct a comprehensive examination of
all relevant factors, particularly those
outlined herein above. The Committee
should include representatives from all
relevant stakeholders, including the civil
administration, public prosecutors, and
police department officers. Their collective
input
should
be
used
to
develop
comprehensive
and
well-structured
guidelines
for
continuous/consistent
monitoring the progress of investigations.
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The copy of the notification constituting
the High-Powered Committee shall be
forwarded immediately to the office of the
Registrar General of this court to be kept
in the record of this case.

27. In the event of non-compliance of
the aforesaid guidelines as may be framed,
a framework for holding individual officers
accountable and establishing a supervision
mechanism at the District, Zonal, and State
Levels should be devised. As one possible
measure to hold errant officers accountable,
their appointment as Station House Officer
(S.H.O.), Station Officer (S.O.), or Incharge of a police station (Chowki-incharge) could be withheld for a specified
period, among other potential actions.

28. The authority to establish these
guidelines indeed lies within the purview of
the State government. In accordance with
the principles expounded in the judgment,
the Committee shall consider the following:

(i) In the initial phase, the
Committee shall formulate guidelines for
monitoring the investigation of First
Information Reports (FIRs) registered by
government departments in cases involving
corruption and cheating. Subsequently, it
will extend these guidelines in a phased
manner to cover all other FIRs as may be
found suitable and appropriate by the
Committee.

(ii) The guidelines should ensure
that investigations are completed within in
a phased manner expeditiously, and strictly
in accordance with the provisions outlined
in Chapters-V, VI, VII, and XII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as
other applicable legal provisions intended
to facilitate effective, fair, unbiased, and
expeditious investigation.

(iii) In cases the police conclude
that no case is made out against the accused
or the suspect, the final report should be
filed strictly in accordance with Regulation
122 (iii) of the U.P. Police Regulations. The
Regulation 122 (i), (ii), and (iv) of the U.P.
Police Regulations, 1861 should also be
taken into consideration while formulating
these guidelines.

(iv) The inclusion of mechanisms
for systematic date-wise tracking of court
proceedings, both at the district and state
levels, is imperative to guarantee the
expeditious disposal of the case. Moreover,
it is imperative for the department to
meticulously have a track on the testimony
of witnesses, ensuring that they depose
factually
correct,
just
and
necessary
information in the court, devoid of any
apprehension or external factors that could
potentially sway the course of justice, and
shall also develop a mechanism for fixing
accountability if a witness act in defiance
of law.

29. In the initial phase, this Court
directs all Commissioners of Police/Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of
Police from all districts to provide a list of
FIRs that have been registered on behalf of
government departments. This list shall
include the date of registration of FIR, the
time and place of the incident, the name of
the complainant, and the names of the
suspects/accused persons. Additionally, a
brief overview of the progress made in the
investigations conducted thus far should be
included.
This
information
must
be
submitted within one month from the date
of receiving a copy of this order to the
Chief Secretary's office. This quantifiable
data collected from all police stations be
used
to
formulate
comprehensive
guidelines.
12 All. Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551

30. This Court directs all the
Commissioners
of
Police/SSPs/SPs
to
endorse their subjective satisfaction by
independently evaluating the circumstances
and the material placed before them,
thereby justifying the submission of a final
report as outlined in Regulation 122 (iii) of
the U.P. Police Regulations by a speaking
order. The copies of this judgment shall be
dispatched
to
all
Commissioners
of
Police/SSPs/SPs in Uttar Pradesh for
prompt adherence. A notification, if any, by
government delegating the authority of
Commissioner of Police/S.S.P./S.P.s to any
of the subordinate officer to sign and
forward the closure report shall stand
inoperative from the date of this order in
cases
registered
by
Government
Department/PSU's/Public Authorities/Cooperative Societies of Government and/or
organisations covered by Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.

31. A copy of this order shall be
forwarded to the Chief Secretary of Uttar
Pradesh with an expectation that guidelines
shall be formulated in a timely manner,
preferably within three months and not
exceeding, in any case, beyond a period of
six months. In consequence thereof, the
relevant directions/G.O. shall also be issued
to all the civil and police departments as
may be necessary in align with the spirit of
this judgment.

32. A copy of this order be sent to all
District Judges, who should then circulate it
amongst all Magistrates, Civil Judges, and
Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned. They
are
responsible
for
ensuring
strict
adherence to Regulation 122 (iii) of the
U.P.
Police
Regulations,
2001.
The
respective judicial officers should also
ensure compliance with the directives
outlined in paragraph 30 of this order and
shall take into account the endorsement
provided
by
the
Commissioner
of
Police/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/Superintendent of Police before
taking cognizance of the matter.

33. Revisiting the facts of the instant
case for disposal of the controversy arisen
in the facts-circumstances, all the petitions
stem from the impugned FIR No. 178 of
2023, registered under sections 409, 419,
420 IPC at the Sujanganj Police Station,
District Jaunpur. The impugned FIR was
lodged on 21.08.2023 by the Block
Development Officer of Sujanganj against
the petitioners Shri Vinod Kumar, Smt.
Pushpa Devi, Shri Manish Kumar Singh,
Shri Sanjay Kumar, and Shri Jawahar Lal
are arrayed as accused.

34. Admittedly, before the registration
of the impugned FIR, a meeting of the
Kshetra
Panchayat
took
place
on
15.06.2023 at Block Sujanpur, organized
by the Project Director of the District Rural
Development Authority (DRDA) Jaunpur.
During this meeting, a Kshetra Panchayat
Sadasya raised concerns about irregularities
committed by government officers while
implementing the MANREGA scheme.
Subsequently, based on the deliberations of
the meeting, a report dated 27.06.2023 was
forwarded to the Chief Development
Officer,
Jaunpur,
revealing
certain
irregularities in the execution of the work.

35. After the perusal of the report
dated 27.06.2023, the Chief Development
Officer, Jaunpur, constituted a threemember Committee chaired by the Project
Director of DRDA, who was wellacquainted with the facts and irregularities
in question. The Project Director's report,
dated 29.08.2023, indicated the preparation
of forged muster rolls, violations of
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
guidelines in executing the work, the
release of funds without according proper
sanction, and alleged illegal gains by the
petitioners in collusion with each other.
Consequently, a recommendation was made
for the registration of the FIR.

36. As a result, the impugned FIR was
registered by the Block Development
Officer
based
on
the
report
dated
19.08.2023.

37. Upon hearing both parties and
examination of the reports, it is evident that
the Project Director conducted an inquiry
before the registration of the impugned FIR
against the petitioners. There are allegation
against all petitioners for creation of forged
and fabricated documents to misappropriate
of an amount of Rs. 15,57,790, causing a
financial loss to the public exchequer. A
plain reading of the impugned FIR's
contents
indicates
a
prima
facie
commission of a cognizable offences at its
face value against the petitioners. At the
first instance, the allegations are of creating
forged documents for approval, violating
rules in the execution of work, and
releasing
funds
without
proper
authorization make sense.

38. In light of the facts and
circumstances, the petitions bearing the
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14349 of
2023,
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.14783 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.14459 of 2023 are devoid of
merits and are therefore dismissed.

39.

The
observations
made
hereinabove shall not affect the outcome of
the investigation of the instant case; they
are made for the purpose of disposing of
the captioned petitions. The Investigating
Officer is expected to conduct a prompt
investigation in the interest of State's
policy dealing in corruption cases.

40. The Registrar (Compliance) of
this court is directed to do the needful at the
earliest for compliance of the terms of the
order.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15515 of 2023

Anil Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Vinayak Ranjan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section 3 (1) - The U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5(3) (c) - gang-chart
shall not be approved without the
completion of investigation of the base
case, Rule 10 - certified copy of the
charge-sheet must be annexed with
the gang chart , Rule 22 - Criminal
history not mandatory and sections of
the Act can be imposed in the course of
investigation - filing or non-filing of
the
charge-sheet
in
the
court
concerned before preparation of the
gang
chart
is
immaterial
-
only
requirement is that the charge-sheet
should be available with the concerned
authority before approval of the gangchart.(Para - 8)