# Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1814
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13460 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-gupta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51892
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226, 261-(3) - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 386, 406, 409, 419,
420, 464, 467, 468 & 471 - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section - 3 - Writ Petition -
assailing the legality and validity of the FIR -
lodged by respondent no. 4, in his personal
capacity,
being
posted
as
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, alleging offence of fraud, cheating,
fabrication of documents & extortion of money
against the petitioners to teach them a bitter
lesson whom are Govt. servants in the electricity
department - when respondent no. 4 purchase a
residential premises from one Smt. Vandana
Pathak there were no any Electricity dues upon
said premises - but, when respondent no. 4
moved an application for mutation of his name in
the record of the Electricity connection, he
apprised that there were Rs, 1,66,916/- is
outstanding against the said premises
-
complaint case - summoning order - the court
below, being not find any complicity of proposed
accused govt. servants, drooped their names
from summoning order - respondent no. 4 filed
criminal revision - order of remand back - court
below pass a fresh summoning order - Criminal
Revision - summoning order was set-aside
against Executive Engineer, SDO & junior
Engineer - on the other hand, the owner of the
premises
has
also
challenged
the
same
proceeding and finally said proceedings were
stands quashed by this court - apart from this, in
a parallel proceedings, respondent no. 4 also filed
a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum which was dismissed and the
appeal
thereafter
before
the
Electricity
Ombudsman was also dismissed - court finds
that, it is clear that respondent no. 4 was trying
hard to any how launch a criminal proceedings
against the petitioners so as to harass them and
when he failed to attain his objective at Lucknow
then he decided to took up fake story and after
auctioning his chair and position as CJM, Banda
any how managed to lodge the FIR - The report
of the SIT have completely exposed the conduct
of the CJM - Held, The judges are also public
servant and under the gaze of public at large and
they should always remember that they are to
serve the public and not for their personal gains
or objective - the present FIR is driven by
malafides and in the colourable exercise of power
vested in respondent no. 4 - thus, this court have
no hesitation to quash the FIR - further, this court
has deprecated and reprehended the conduct of
the CJM in the strongest term and directed to the
Registrar General of this Court to keep the copy
of this judgment in the dossier/service record of
CJM-respondent no. 4 and also circulate to all
sessions divisions of the St. of UP apprising the
District judges and judicial officers not to permit
any FIR by Judge/Judicial officer in their personal
capacity - Application allowed. (Para - 8, 23, 24,
26, 27, 29, 30)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,918 of 62,596. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._

1814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry as to the reliability, genuineness, or
otherwise correctness of the allegations made in
the F.I.R., and the extraordinary and inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
this Court to act to its whim or caprice.

16. The ramifications of fraud by the court
staff are far-reaching and detrimental to the justice
system and erode the public trust in the judiciary.
When court staff abuse their authority for personal
gain, it compromises the integrity of judicial
decisions and raises questions about the
legitimacy of legal proceedings.

17. Reverting to the materials placed before
us, which surfaced during the investigation, in our
considered opinion, the allegations against the
petitioner do clearly constitute a cognizable
offence justifying the registration of F.I.R. and the
investigation thereon, this case does not fall under
any of the categories of the cases formulated in
Bhajan Lal's case (supra) calling for the exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction to the High Court to
quash the F.I.R. itself.

18. As the petitioner is not cooperating
with the Investigating Officer, the police are
conducting raids on his hide-outs; there is
serious apprehension to the police that the
petitioner may tamper with the evidence and
influence the witnesses to be conversant with
the proceedings of the criminal case, as had
worked in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate and presently working/posted as
Central Nazir in District Court, Sonebhadra;
therefore, the prayer for a stay on arrest is
hereby declined.

19. As delineated herein above, primafacie, the allegations are serious, and the
potential accused are resourceful. Therefore, a
thorough and unbiased investigation shall be
conducted without being influenced by
external influences for extraneous reasons.
The I.G. Police, Varanasi Zone shall supervise
the
overall
investigation,
and
the
Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra in coordination with DIG Police, Mirzapur Range
shall supervise the day-to-day investigation.

20. The instant writ petition is dismissed,
with
the
direction
to
complete
the
investigation at the earliest. Furthermore, it is
directed that the I.G. Police, Varanasi Zone
shall ensure that the Investigating Officer
avails all available scientific and forensic
assistance
in
collecting
evidence,
as
permissible under law. If allegations of
corruption and criminal breach of trust by a
government servant emerge during the
investigation, all relevant aspects shall be
thoroughly examined by the police.

21. The observations made herein above
shall have no bearing on an ongoing
investigation.

22. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to the I.G. Police, Varanasi Zone
and SSP Sonebhadra for immediate and
effective compliance.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1814
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13460 of 2023

Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, Sri Mukesh Kumar
Singh
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1815
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anwar Hussain, Sri Avinash Mani
Tripathi, G.A.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226, 261-(3) - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 386, 406, 409, 419,
420, 464, 467, 468 & 471 - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section - 3 - Writ Petition -
assailing the legality and validity of the FIR -
lodged by respondent no. 4, in his personal
capacity,
being
posted
as
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, alleging offence of fraud, cheating,
fabrication of documents & extortion of money
against the petitioners to teach them a bitter
lesson whom are Govt. servants in the electricity
department - when respondent no. 4 purchase a
residential premises from one Smt. Vandana
Pathak there were no any Electricity dues upon
said premises - but, when respondent no. 4
moved an application for mutation of his name in
the record of the Electricity connection, he
apprised that there were Rs, 1,66,916/- is
outstanding against the said premises
-
complaint case - summoning order - the court
below, being not find any complicity of proposed
accused govt. servants, drooped their names
from summoning order - respondent no. 4 filed
criminal revision - order of remand back - court
below pass a fresh summoning order - Criminal
Revision - summoning order was set-aside
against Executive Engineer, SDO & junior
Engineer - on the other hand, the owner of the
premises
has
also
challenged
the
same
proceeding and finally said proceedings were
stands quashed by this court - apart from this, in
a parallel proceedings, respondent no. 4 also filed
a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum which was dismissed and the
appeal
thereafter
before
the
Electricity
Ombudsman was also dismissed - court finds
that, it is clear that respondent no. 4 was trying
hard to any how launch a criminal proceedings
against the petitioners so as to harass them and
when he failed to attain his objective at Lucknow
then he decided to took up fake story and after
auctioning his chair and position as CJM, Banda
any how managed to lodge the FIR - The report
of the SIT have completely exposed the conduct
of the CJM - Held, The judges are also public
servant and under the gaze of public at large and
they should always remember that they are to
serve the public and not for their personal gains
or objective - the present FIR is driven by
malafides and in the colourable exercise of power
vested in respondent no. 4 - thus, this court have
no hesitation to quash the FIR - further, this court
has deprecated and reprehended the conduct of
the CJM in the strongest term and directed to the
Registrar General of this Court to keep the copy
of this judgment in the dossier/service record of
CJM-respondent no. 4 and also circulate to all
sessions divisions of the St. of UP apprising the
District judges and judicial officers not to permit
any FIR by Judge/Judicial officer in their personal
capacity - Application allowed. (Para - 8, 23, 24,
26, 27, 29, 30)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. All India Judges Association Vs U.O.I., 1992 (1)
SCC 119,

2. Md. Idrisur Rahman, Government of 4 of 25
Bangladesh and Ors. Vs Syed Shahidur Rahman
and Ors, 2016(24) BLT (AD) 178,

3. Daya Shankar Vs High Court of Allahabad &
ors., 1987 (3) SCC 1,

4. R.C. Chandel Vs High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, 2012 (8) SCC 58,

5. Tarak Singh Vs Jyoti Basu, 2005 (1) SCC 201,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.
&
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners namely
(i)
Manoj
Kumar
Gupta,
Executive
Engineer, LESA Trans, Sitapur Road,
Lucknow; (ii) Deependra Singh, Sub
Divisional Officer at 33/11 KV Sub Station
Faizullaganj,
Aliganj,
Lucknow;
(iii)
Rakesh Pratap Singh, contractual employee
at 33/11 KV Sub Station GSI, Aliganj,
Lucknow and Shri Avinash Mani Tripathi
1816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Shri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 Bhagwan Das Gupta,
presently posted as C.J.M., Banda and Shri
Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned Amicus
Curiae for the Electricity Department and
also Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P.

• Pleadings have been exchanged
between the parties as well as the written
submissions were also furnished by the
respective counsels. The matter is ripe for
final adjudication of the case.

• The matter was heard by this
Court at length on 05.10.2023 and the
judgment was reserved. In the intervening
period, while drafting of judgment was
about to complete, the Court came across
certain
issues
which
need
further
clarification. Under the circumstances, on
10.5.2024 the case was ordered to be listed
on 21.5.2024 for further hearing. After
having clarifications, hence this judgment.

• From the array of the parties, it is
evident that the F.I.R. was lodged by
respondent no.4 Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, in
his personal capacity and on his own name,
as an informant of Case Crime No.606 of
2023, u/s 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468,
471 and 386 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali,
District Banda, against the petitioners, who
are the serving officials of the Electricity
Department of the government.

Hence, this petition by the
petitioners, who are jointly assailing the
legality and validity of the F.I.R. lodged by
respondent no.4 who is a judicial officer at
Banda Judgeship and posted as Chief
Judicial Magistrate.

• Before coming to the merit of the
case, this Court would like to enucleate the
level of standard expected from the Judges
or even from the magistrates and thereafter
deal with the merit of the case.

PREFACE :

"My son, do not forget my law, but
let your heart keep my commands; Let not
justice and truth forsake you, bind them
around your neck, write them on the tablet
of your heart."

As per the provisions of Article
261(3) of the Constitution of India the
Judges while discharging their duties in the
district
courts
enjoy
constitutional
authorities. Their position and authority
cannot be compared with the position of
other civil servants, discharging their duties
their peace, law and order in the society,
that's the reason this Court is in favour of
calling them as "Judges" and not as a
Judicial Officer. They are not officers but
Judges. This position was reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All India
Judges Association vs. Union of India,
1992 (1) SCC 119, holding that the Judges
of the district judiciary are exercising the
sovereign function of the State. Their status
and position cannot be compared with the
officers of the district administration or the
police administration. If there can be any
comparison, their position is at par with the
political executives because going by the
nature of duties they are supposed to
discharge, they are the decision makers and
such decision by way of judgments and
orders are binding on all throughout the
territory in which they exercise their
jurisdiction. Accordingly their behaviour,
conduct, temperament, tolerance should also
be at par with their constitutional position
and the same cannot be compared with other
officers
discharging
their
duties
for
implementing the policies in the society.

Justice R.C. Lahoti, the then Chief
Justice of India, in "Canons of Judicial
Ethics" says that who talks ethics in these
days? and who listens to ethics?, Justice
Lahoti by way of giving a beautiful example
states that;
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1817

A patient visited a doctor's clinic
and asked the receptionist -

"I want to see a specialist of eyes
and ears."

The receptionists said "There are
doctors of ears, nose and throat and there
are doctors of eyes; There is no specialist
who treats both the eyes and ears." But then
why are you in need of such a doctor?"

The patient replied "These days I
do not see what I hear and I do not hear what
I see."

Thus, the last lines of above
message, that I do not see what I hear and I
do not hear what I see, really are the
guidelines for every Judge. His conduct,
behaviour and approach should be such,
which is suave and soothing to eyes and ear.

In this regard, in our oldest
cultural lessons it has been emphatically
mentioned as under:

"स्वदस्तप्रजरभ्यः पररपरियन्तरां न्यरयेन र्रगेण र्हीं
र्हीशरः।

गोब्ररह्मणेभ्यः शुिर्स्तु दनत्यां िोकरः सर्स्तरः सुदखनो
िवन्तु॥

May the well-being of all people
be protected by the powerful and mighty
leaders be with law and justice.

May the success be with all
divinity and scholars, May all (samastāḥ) the
worlds (lokāḥ) become (bhavantu) happy
(sukhino)."

In simple words we can say that
the
judicial
ethics,
morals,
judicial
behaviour are the basic principles of the
right action for the Judges to ensure their
impeccable, spotless and see through image
in the society. They consist of or relate to the
moral action, conduct, motive, character of
a Judge, what is right or befitting to the
individual. It can also be said that judicial
ethics consists of such values as belongs to
the system of the judiciary without regard to
the time or place and are preferred for justice
dispensation.

A passage for the writings of Sir
Winston Churchill generally quoted by Law
Commission of India in several reports and
recommendations holds a lot of relevance in
this regard. This Court is mentioning the
passage of Winston Churchill because it is
very much relevant for judicial ethics and
judicial conduct;

"A form of life and conduct for
more severe and restricted than that of
ordinary people is required from judges and
though unwritten has been most strictly
observed. They are at once privileged and
restrictive;
they
have
to
present
a
continuous aspect of dignity and conduct".

The aforesaid passage shows that
judges has to lead a restricted life. Austerity
is a quality to be practised by every Judgepersonally as also in the public functioning.

This necessarily gives rise to a
situation where the Judges must have a
passion perseverance and pain taking habit.
He should administer justice according to
law and deals with his appointment as public
trust, he should not allow other affairs to his
private interest to interfere with from and
proper performance of his judicial duties,
nor should he administer the office for the
purpose of advancing his personal ambition
or increasing the popularity.

In a Full Bench judgment of
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate
Division)
in
Md.
Idrisur
Rahman,
Government of Bangladesh and Ors. vs.
Syed Shahidur Rahman and Ors, 2016(24)
BLT
(AD)
178
while
deciding
the
constitutional issue involved in the aforesaid
appeal having public importance. The point
is directly related to code of conduct of the
Judges of higher echelons. The code of
conduct relates to upholding the integrity
and independence of judiciary. It reminds
that the Judges to maintain "highest
standards of conduct" so that the integrity
and independence of the judiciary are
1818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preserved. It is expected that the judges
should respect and comply with the law and
should act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. A judge
should not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct. A
judge should not lend the prestige of the
judicial office to advance the private
interests of others; nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are
in a special position to influence the Judge.
Every Judge must at all times be conscious
that he is under the public gaze and there
should be no act or omission by him which
is unbecoming of his office.

A couplet of Urdu by an Urdu poet
would be mauzu (postulate) herein under:
"मुंमसफ़-ओ-मुद्दई से कैसे रू-ब-रू होंगे,
तमाशबीन कल ऱिीब कू-ब-कू होंगे।
लड़ेंगे कैसे कल तलक वो मेरे बािू थे,

जीत जरयेंगे अगर हर् बे-आबरू होंगे।"

In yet another judgment in the
case of Daya Shankar vs. High Court of
Allahabad and others, 1987 (3) SCC 1,
held thus :

"Judicial officers cannot have two
standards, one in the court and other outside
the court. They must have only one standard
of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They
cannot act even remotely unworthy of the
office they occupy."

The first and foremost quality
required in a Judge is his integrity. The need
of integrity in the judiciary is much higher
than other institution. The judiciary is an
institution whose foundation is based on
honesty, impartiality and integrity of sterling
quality. Judges must remember that they are
not merely an employee but they hold a high
public office. The standard of conduct
expected of a Judge is much than that of an
ordinary person. The following is the
relevant extracts from the judgment of R.C.
Chandel vs. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, 2012 (8) SCC 58 :

"Judicial service is not an
ordinary government service and the Judges
are not employees as such. Judges hold the
public office; their function is one of the
essential functions of the State. In discharge
of their functions and duties, the Judges
represent the State. The office that a Judge
holds is an office of public trust. A Judge
must be a person of impeccable integrity and
unimpeachable independence. He must be
honest to the core with high moral values.
When a litigant enters the courtroom, he
must feel secured that the Judge before
whom his matter has come, would deliver
justice impartially and uninfluenced by any
consideration. The standard of conduct
expected of a Judge is much higher than an
ordinary man. This is no excuse that since
the standards in the society have fallen, the
Judges who are drawn from the society
cannot be expected to have high standards
and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A
Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above
suspicion. The credibility of the judicial
system is dependent upon the Judges who
man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule
of law to survive, justice system and the
judicial process have to be strong and every
Judge must discharge his judicial functions
with integrity, impartiality and intellectual
honesty."

On the similar lines, in the
judgment of Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti Basu,
2005 (1) SCC 201 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that :

"Integrity is the hall-mark of
judicial discipline, apart from others. It is
high time the judiciary must take utmost
care to see that temple of justice do not crack
from inside, which will lead to catastrophe
in the justice delivery system resulting in the
failure of Public Confidence in the system.
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1819
We must remember that woodpeckers inside
pose a larger threat than the storm outside."

If a person is holding prestigious
judicial office, there is nothing wrong in a
Judge having an ambition to achieve
something, but if the ambition to achieve is
rightly to cause a compromise with his
divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it,
because if a Judge is too ambitious to
achieve something materially, he becomes
timid. When he becomes timid, there will be
tendency to make a compromise between his
divine duty and his personal interest. There
will be conflict between the interest and
duties.

It has been taught in Bible that :

"Why do you look at the
speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and
pay no attention to the plank in your own
eye?"

In the instant case which would be
discussed by this Court, this exactly
happened when Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta
occupying a position of Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Banda lodges an F.I.R. against
the petitioners who are the government
servants to teach a bitter lesson to them, so
that they may understand the power and
position of a C.J.M. These government
servants (the petitioners) are of the
Electricity Department, were not serving his
interest or dancing on his tune, thus by
initiating a criminal prosecution against
them after levelling bogus and wild
allegations, the respondent no.4 wants to
kneel down them, before him.

We have extracted the above
observations from the various authorities
who time and again have underlined the high
standards of morals, ethics, integrity,
impartiality, see through honesty and
selfless service towards society by a judicial
officer, who is different and distinct from the
rest of the government officers and is being
entrusted to do a divine job to perform
judicial work with best of his ability,
integrity, impartiality and to give up his
personal ego, material gains and interest, so
that he may pave path for free flow of justice
to the common men of the society.

2. We have to test the present case with
the above mentioned higher standards of
judicial propriety and discipline and the
conduct of an individual Judge i.e.
Respondent no.4 in the present case.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. As mentioned above, the
petitioners Manoj Kumar Gupta, Executive
Engineer, LESA Trans, Sitapur Road,
Lucknow; (ii) Deependra Singh, Sub
Divisional Officer at 33/11 KV Sub Station
Faizullaganj,
Aliganj,
Lucknow;
(iii)
Rakesh Pratap Singh, contractual employee
at 33/11 KV Sub Station GSI, Aliganj,
Lucknow have jointly invoked the powers of
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the follow
prayers :

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the First Information Report dated
27.07.2023 in Case Crime No.605 of 2023,
under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467,
468, 471, 386 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali,
District Banda (Annexure No.1 of Petition).

(b) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2 and 3 not to arrest the
petitioners in Case Crime No.605 of 2023,
under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467,
468, 471, 386 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali,
District Banda."

It is worthwhile to mention here
that this FIR was lodged against the
accused-petitioners by the respondent no.4
Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, posted as C.J.M.,
Banda in his personal capacity, levelling
1820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wild and tailored allegations of fraud,
cheating,
fabrication
of
documents,
extortion of money against the petitioners
who themselves are the government officials
of Electricity Department. This F.I.R. is
nothing but tissue of utter falsehood, drafted
by Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, Respondent
No.4.

4. The brief skeleton facts of the case
which has given rise to the present
controversy are;

(i) a residential premises No.ES1B/ 239-A, Sitapur Road Yojna (SRY),
Aliganj, Lucknow was earlier owned by one
Vandana Pathak wife of Atul Awasthi,
having
Electricity
Connection
No.4104390000 (from Madhyanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited) was allowed on
15.7.2005 in the name of Vandana Pathak in
her above residential premises.

5. Respondent no.4 Dr. Bhagwan Das
Gupta has purchased the above premises
vide sale deed dated 3.8.2009 from Vandana
Pathak, and thereafter moved an application
to the concerned electricity department for
entering his name in place of Vandana
Pathak. S.D.O., 33/11 KV Sub Station,
G.S.I., Aliganj vide letter dated 17.6.2013
apprised respondent no.4 that Rs.166916/- is
outstanding against the above electricity
connection (Annexure No.2).

Shocked by this, the respondent
no.4 filed a complaint on 20.8.2013 before
the Additional Civil Judge, Court No.37,
Lucknow for initiating a prosecution u/s
420, 464, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C. against
Vandana
Pathak, Atul Awasthi
(her
husband),
A.K.
Jaiswal
(Executive
Engineer),
Electricity
Distribution
Division, LESA, Rahim Nagar Sector-6,
Jankipuram Extension, Lucknow; Krishna
Avatar Vishwakarma and Rajendra Kumar,
Junior Engineers, LESA.

In
fact,
these
officials
of
Electricity Department (the petitioners)
have got no concern with inter-se dealing
between Vandana Pathak/Atul Awasthi on
one hand and Mr. Bhagwan Das Gupta,
C.J.M., Banda on the other hand. S.D.O.
has only raised the demand of the
outstanding sum over the said residential
premises, since Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta,
Respondent No.4 has now become new
owner of the premises in question after
03.8.2009.

6. The court of Additional Civil
Judge,
Court
No.37,
Lucknow
on
14.2.2014
have
summoned
Vandana
Pathak and her husband Atul Awasthi also
u/s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. in Complaint Case
No.88 of 2013 but did not find any
complicity of proposed accused no.3, 4
and 5 i.e. Executive Engineer, S.D.O. and
Junior Engineer in this tangle, accordingly
dropped their names from summoning
order dated 14.2.2014.

It seems that aggrieved by this
order and with ill motive, Respondent no.4
Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta challenged the
order dated 14.2.2014 by filing a Crl.
Revision 690 of 2014 in the court of Special
Judge, C.B.I., Court no.4, Lucknow who
vide judgment and order dated 30.7.2014
allowed the revision and directed the court
below to pass a fresh order in the light of the
observation
in
the
revisional
court's
judgment. Accordingly,
the
concerned
Magistrate have again passed a fresh order
on 15.5.2015 summoning all the accused in
complaint dated 20.8.2013 u/s 504, 506,
406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. including
officials of Electricity Department, who
have acted in the discharge of official duty,
apprising Respondent no.4 about the
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1821
outstanding sum from the electricity
connection installed in the residential
premises now owned by Respondent No.4.

This
summoning
order
was
challenged by the proposed accused no.3, 4
and 5 by filing Crl. Revision No.124 of 2016
before the revisional court, who vide
judgment and order dated 29.01.2021 have
allowed the revision and set aside the
summoning order dated 15.5.2015, so far as
the revisionist are concerned i.e. the
Executive Engineer, S.D.O. and Junior
Engineer.

7. It was further argued by learned
counsel for petitioners that Vandana Pathak
and Atul Awasthi too have filed a Criminal
Revision before Special Judge, E.C. Act,
Lucknow assailing the legality and validity
of summoning order dated 15.5.2015.
Though the said revision was eventually
rejected by the learned revisional court.
Aggrieved by the revisional court's order,
they have preferred Misc. Single Case
No.31368 of 2018 (Vandana Pathak and
others vs. State of U.P.), Lucknow Bench of
this Court while disposing of the aforesaid
482 application on 13.11.2019 passed the
following observation :

"It is undisputed that House No.
ES 1B 239/A, EWS, Sitapur Road Scheme,
Lucknow was sold by the petitioners to
respondent no. 2 vide registered sale deed
dated 03.08.2019. In para 3 of the sale deed,
it has categorically been mentioned that if
any liability, upto the date of execution of the
sale deed, is found on the property in
question, then the seller (petitioners) shall
be responsible to pay the same. In
paragraph 5 of the petition, it has
specifically been pleaded that petitioners
have deposited the last electricity bill on
30.07.2009 and no electricity bill was due
on the date of execution of the sale deed, i.e.,
on 03.08.2019. Para 5 of the petition reads
as under:

"That on the date of aforesaid sale
deed, there were no electricity dues on the
house. The last electricity bill on the said
house was Rs.6941/- which was paid on
30.7.2009 by the petitioners i.e. prior to date
of registry in favour of complainant.?

Further, if at all, any electricity
bill was due, as alleged by respondent no. 2
in the complaint, on the date of execution of
the sale deed, i.e., 03.08.2009, petitioners
are liable for payment of the same and by
any stretch of imagination, no criminal
complaint is maintainable, as no alleged
offence under Sections 504, 506, 406, 420,
467 and 468 read with Section 120B I.P.C.
is made out."

In view of above facts and
circumstances, the proceedings against the
applicants Vandana Pathak and her husband
stands quashed subject to above condition
by the Bench of this Court.

8. It is apposite to mention that a
parallel to the aforesaid criminal prosecution
the respondent no.4 -Dr. Bhagwan Das
Gupta, C.J.M. in order to mount pressure
upon the petitioners, filed a complaint
before the 'District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Lucknow', registered as
Complaint Case No.01 of 2013 and said
complaint was dismissed vide order dated
17.2.2014. This order was challenged by the
Respondent no.4 before the 'Electricity
Ombudsman
Lucknow',
registered
as
Representation No.85 of 2014. The said
'Electricity Ombudsman' vide order dated
7.8.2014 dismissed the representation as he
has failed to comply with the mandatory
provision to deposit certain percentage of
total outstanding amount.

Thus, it is clear that the C.J.M.-
Respondent no.4 was trying hard to any how
1822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
launch a criminal prosecution against the
petitioners so as to harass them, though they
themselves are government servants. But
when Respondent No.4 failed to attain his
objective at Lucknow, then he decided to
cook up fake story and after auctioning his
chair and position as C.J.M., Banda any how
managed to lodge the F.I.R. against the
petitioners, whose informant was Dr.
Bhagwan Das Gupta, C.J.M., Banda as Case
Crime No.606 of 2023 at P.S. Kotwali,
Banda u/s 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468,
471, 386 I.P.C. This fact itself speaks
volumes about the hidden objective, design
and ill motive of Respondent no.4. It is not
expected from a C.J.M. that he would use his
office and the chair to subserve his personal
interest against the petitioners. It is unheard
off, that a sitting Chief Judicial Magistrate is
acting as an ordinary litigant so as to trap the
officials of Electricity Department by
initiating a criminal proceeding against
them, who probably have declined the
Respondent No.4 to serve his interest. Now
by twisting their arms, Shri Bhagwan Das
Gupta, C.J.M. (Respondent no.4) wants to
kneel down these petitioners before him so
that the petitioners should ignore the
outstanding bill accrued over the previous
electricity connection and order new
electricity connection on his residential
premises owned by him. It means, by
extending the threats of proposed criminal
case, the petitioners should betray the
department and cheat the coffers of State.
This seems to be sole motive and objective
of Respondent no.4 for initiating the
criminal case against them.

9. In paragraph 12 of the petition the
petitioners have spelled out the various
applications, site inspection report, queries
raised by the department, outstanding dues
and the steps taken by the department on the
application made by respondent no.4. At the
end, it has been mentioned that the demand
made on 24.6.2023 by the department, the
electricity
dues
were
swelled
from
Rs.1,66,916/-
to
Rs.2,19,063/-
for
the
intervening period. The said executive
engineer has conducted site inspection of
aforesaid premises on 17.7.2003 and found
that the electricity meter installed for
connection no.4104390000 was missing from
the place where it was originally installed.

10. Most shocking and startling feature
of the case, the Respondent no.4, after loosing
legal battle at Lucknow, stoop down to the
level when he started hobnobbing and
conniving with Dan Bahadur Pal, S.I., P.S.
Kotwali, Banda so that he should lodge an
F.I.R. at Banda, where Respondent no.4 is
posted as C.J.M. This is per se unholy and
unethical relationship between a C.J.M. on
one hand and Sub Inspector on the other hand.
After loosing the legal battle at Lucknow,
thereafter
District
Consumer
Forum,
Lucknow and denying any relief from the
Electricity Ombudsman, the Respondent no.4
C.J.M., Banda has came down to the level
whereby he has virtually auctioned his chair
and position as C.J.M. while prevailing upon
the S.H.O., Kotwali Banda to lodge an F.I.R.
against the petitioners. Annexure-9 and
Annexure-10 are the glaring example of such
type of sub-standard activity on the part of
Respondent no.4. The screen shot of whatsapp
messages between the concerned Sub
Inspector and petitioner no.1, annexed as
Annexure-9, speaks volume about the
pressure exerted by the Respondent no.4
C.J.M. on the concerned S.I. This is the
exceptional example of misuse of one's office
and position to extend the threats of criminal
prosecution against the petitioners.

This Court is constrained to
deprecate, reprimand and condemn this
practice in the strongest term to this conduct
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1823
of Respondent no.4, C.J.M., Banda for
exerting pressure upon the concerned S.I. so
as to lodge the F.I.R.

This is an unbecoming of a C.J.M.
of the district. When the concerned C.J.M.,
as mentioned above, lost his case at
Lucknow, then in its second innings, he has
successfully prevailed upon the S.I. named
above to lodge the F.I.R., making all sorts of
wild and venomous allegations against the
petitioners for alleged act of fraud, cheating,
fabricating the documents and extortion of
money against the petitioners.

11. The Court has perused the contents
of F.I.R. in which it has been stated that on
17th June, 2023 the informant has applied
for electricity connection vide application
no.1013441101. It is alleged that after 5-6
days he has received a call from one Rakesh
projecting him as employee of Electricity
Department from Lucknow on informant's
mobile number 9450095802, demanding
from him Rs.20,000/- for the electricity
connection at the behest of Executive
Engineer
and
S.D.O.,
GSI
Aliganj,
Lucknow. On this, he asked his younger
brother Anand Kumar Gupta to hand over
Rs.20,000/- but instead of giving a regular
connection the petitioners has produced a
forged electronically generated document
demanding Rs.2,19,063/- as outstanding
sum from his old connection.

At this juncture Shri Baleshwar
Chaturvedi, learned Amicus Curiae and
permanent counsel for the Electricity
Department,
submits
that
no
second
connection as desired by Respondent no.4
would be allowed on the same residential
premises, till the outstanding sum for the
earlier connection is not cleared-off.

It seems that the respondent no.4
is mixing two different issues:- unless and
until the outstanding amount on the earlier
electricity connection no.4104390000 is not
cleared off, how a new connection would be
allotted to the same residential premise?

12. Learned counsel for petitioners has
drawn attention of the Court to inter office
communication written by Superintendent
Engineer to the Executive Engineer on
5.8.2023, a relevant excerpt of the
communication reads thus :

"अधोहस्ताक्षरी को अवगत हुआ मक डा० भगवान
दास गुप्ता, सी०जे०एम०, बांदा ने पुनः अधोहस्ताक्षरी पर मबना बकाया
का पैसा जमा कराये, बकाया पररसर पर मवद्युत कनेक्शन देने हेतु दबाव
बनाने के मलए अपने सरकारी शमक्त का दुरुपयोग करते हुए गलत
आरोप लगाते हुए कोतवाली बांदा में मदनांक 27.07.2023 को
अमधशासी अमभयन्ता, उपखण्ड अमधकारी, अवर अमभयन्ता, लाईन
मैन के मवरुद्ध मवमभन्न धाराओं में मुकदमा पंजीकृत कराया है तथा
अपने कायटरत जनपद पर ही स्थामपत कोतवाली थाने के उपमनरीक्षक
पर यह दबाव बना रहे है मक इन सब को मगरफ्तार कर मलया जाये एवं
मदनांक 04.08.2023 को उपमनरीक्षक कोतवाली बांदा श्री दान
बहादुर पाल इस कायाटलय में पड़ताल हेतु आये भी थे।"

This
communication
speaks
volume about the Respondent no.4, Dr.
Bhagwan Das Gupta who was out and out to
exert duress, threat and coercion upon the
petitioners, after auctioning his own dignity,
honour and reputation with sole objective to
compel the petitioners to serve his financial
interest and wife-off the outstanding and
issue an order for fresh connection.

13. In paragraph 20 of the petition
regarding
the
allegation
of
paying
Rs.20,000/- is concerned, is false and
fabricated just to create a false criminal case
against the petitioners as argued by the
counsel for petitioners. Neither any date nor
place has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Who
is this Rakesh Kumar and under what
capacity he was demanding the amount is a
million dollar mystery. The C.J.M. has
fasten a wild allegation against senior
officials of the electricity department.
1824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. So far as the electricity dues of
Rs.2,19,063/- is concerned, it relates to the
aforementioned
electricity
connection
which
is
genuine
and
electronically
generated from the computerized system
and the query dated 26.4.2023 on the
application is perfectly valid and genuine.
The petitioners have raised this demand of
outstanding sum in the discharge of their
official duty. On these grounds, it is
contended
by
learned
counsel
for
petitioners, that no offence under Sections
406, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 386 I.P.C.
is made out against the petitioners.

15. It is further argued by learned
counsel for petitioners that the C.J.M.
misusing the powers as such has prevailed
upon the poor Sub Inspector of Police
Station Kotwali, Banda and succeeded in
lodging the F.I.R. which is nothing but a
gross, blatant and naked misuse of power.
The action of the petitioners is protected
under Section 168 of the Electricity Act,
2003 that anything done in good faith
purporting to be done in this Act or Rules,
regulations made underunder by any public
servant would not be subjected for criminal
prosecution.

16. Per contra, a counter affidavit was
filed and signed by the respondent no.4
himself in which he has spelled out number
of factual aspects of the issue and letter
correspondence with the department which
cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. By these correspondences with the
department, the Respondent no.4 wants to
impress upon the Court, that he has been
cheated by the hands of petitioners who are
officials of Electricity Department.

17. During argument, it has been
surfaced that from the date of purchase of
said premises i.e. 3.8.2009 till date the
Respondent no.4 has paid a meagre sum of
around Rs.5,000/- only in last 14 years. This
per se is own admission of Respondent no.4
during argument. This is indeed shocking
and surprising that in this period of 14 years
the respondent no.4 has paid only Rs.5000/-
(approx). On making a query during
argument, learned counsel for respondent
no.4 states that he is using solar power for
his daily consumption. It is unswallowable
that Respondent no.4, who is C.J.M., has
paid Rs.5000/- only without having any
Permanent Disconnection of the electricity
connection and has paid only Rs.5000/- on
the false pretext that he is using solar panel
for his daily use. Without having Permanent
Disconnection
(P.D.C.)
or
giving
application in this behalf asking for P.D.C.,
the Electricity Department is well within
their rights to levy minimum electricity bill
on the old connection. Respondent No.4, as
mentioned above, has paid Rs.5000/- from
the date of purchase of the house till forced
P.D.C. was done by the Department in 2021.
It is simply amusing that a consumer has
paid Rs.5000/- without any P.D.C. for more
than a decade.

18. During argument this Court, on
24.8.2023 has given a direction for
constituting a S.I.T. to hold a preliminary
investigation into the matter. Accordingly,
S.I.T. led by (i) Mr. Abdul Hameed, D.I.G.,
A.N.T.F., U.P. Lucknow; and (ii) Shri Atul
Sharma, Senanayak, 24 Battalion P.A.C.,
Moradabad and (iii) Shri Ram Kishun, S.P.
Vigilance Lucknow are the members of the
said S.I.T. While passing the Court have
formulated following queries for which the
probe was supposed to be required, they are :

(a)
whether
any
cognizable
offence is made out against the petitioner or
not;
5 All. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1825

(b) whether respondent no.4 has
misused his power and position as the
C.J.M., Banda;

(c) whether alleged transaction of
Rs.20,000/-
was
ever
given
by
the
respondent to a person named as Rakesh
and its receipt as alleged in the F.I.R.;

(d) whether demand notice of
Rs.2,10,063/- is forged document;

(e) what are the past credentials of
respondent no.4 as judicial officer?

(f) whether the respondent no.4
has taken into confidence or taken prior
permission from the learned District Judge,
Banda before lodging of the F.I.R.

19. The said S.I.T. during threadbare
investigation have recorded the statement of
Shri Dan Bahadur, I.O. of Case Crime
No.605 of 2023 (State vs. Manoj Kumar
Gupta), in which he states before the S.I.T. :

"श्री दानबहादुर पुत् स्व० प्रभुनाथ पाल मनवासी ग्राम
ढेढरा थाना माण्डा जनपद प्रयागराज पीएनओ-882310277
मो०नं०-8400874647 हाल पता ओपी मसमवल लाइन्स थाना
कोतवाली नगर जनपद बााँदा-