# Radhey Krishna Trivedi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1112
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-20
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 4433 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ved Prakash Vaish, Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhey-krishna-trivedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45624
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Girish Chandra Sinha

A. Challenging-notice dated 20.02.2013proceedings
initiated
against
him-by
Economic
Offences
Wing-seeking
declaration of the same as illegal-on the
ground that-investigation initiated-without
lodging of FIR-notices served on himinstead of appearing or filing reply-before
Economic
Offences
Wing-filed
present
petition-prel.
enquiry
permissible-before
lodging of FIR-no illegality in impugned
notice-Petition Dismissed.

B. Held, in the instant case, on receipt of a
complaint against the petitioner, Economic
Offences Wing issued a letter dated 21st
January, 2013 to the petitioner, another
letter
dated
20th
February,
2013
(annexure-1 to the writ petition) was sent
to the petitioner to appear within one week
and submit his reply. The petitioner instead
of appearing in the office of Economic
Offences Wing or filing reply to the queries
made by them, file the present petition.We
are of the considered opinion that the
Economic
Offences
Wing
has
taken
recourse to a preliminary inquiry which is
inconsonance with the decision in Lalita
Kumari's case (supra). We do not find any
illegality in the impugned notice dated 20th
February, 2013. In the light of aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that the writ
petition
is
without
any
merit,
same
deserves to be dismissed and the same is
hereby dismissed.

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A1112

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 4433 of 2013

Radhey Krishna Trivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dhruv Mathur

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Girish Chandra Sinha

A. Challenging-notice dated 20.02.2013proceedings
initiated
against
him-by
Economic
Offences
Wing-seeking
declaration of the same as illegal-on the
ground that-investigation initiated-without
lodging of FIR-notices served on himinstead of appearing or filing reply-before
Economic
Offences
Wing-filed
present
petition-prel.
enquiry
permissible-before
lodging of FIR-no illegality in impugned
notice-Petition Dismissed.

B. Held, in the instant case, on receipt of a
complaint against the petitioner, Economic
Offences Wing issued a letter dated 21st
January, 2013 to the petitioner, another
letter
dated
20th
February,
2013
(annexure-1 to the writ petition) was sent
to the petitioner to appear within one week
and submit his reply. The petitioner instead
of appearing in the office of Economic
Offences Wing or filing reply to the queries
made by them, file the present petition.We
are of the considered opinion that the
Economic
Offences
Wing
has
taken
recourse to a preliminary inquiry which is
inconsonance with the decision in Lalita
Kumari's case (supra). We do not find any
illegality in the impugned notice dated 20th
February, 2013. In the light of aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that the writ
petition
is
without
any
merit,
same
deserves to be dismissed and the same is
hereby dismissed.

List of cases cited:-

1. P. Sirajuddin, ETC vs. State of Madras, ETC', 1970
(1) SCC 595

2. Lalita Kumari vs. State Government of Uttar
Pradesh and others', (2014) 2 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Baksh Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondents No.1 to 5 and Sri Girish Chandra
Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.9.

2. The petitioner, Sri Radhey Krishna
Trivedi has filed the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with
the following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus declaring the
impugned
investigation/proceeding
being
conducted against the Petitioner by the
Economic Offences Wing of the State
Government as illegal.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned
investigation/proceeding
being
carried out by the Economic Offences Wing of
the State Government against the petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents not to harass and proceed
against the Petitioner in any manner.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction for summoning of all
letters,
orders,
notices,
Government
Orders pursuant to which the impugned
2 All. Smt. Leelawati & Ors. Vs. The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lko.
1113
investigation is being conducted against
the Petitioner and to quash the same."

3. Briefly stating, the facts as set out
in the petition are that the petitioner retired
from the post of Assistant Branch
Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of
India in the year 1997; a letter dated 20th
February, 2013 from the office of
Economic Offences Wing U.P. was
received by the petitioner requiring him to
appear within one week and produce all
relevant documents and cooperate in the
investigation; earlier another letter dated
21st January, 2013 was sent to the
petitioner which was referred in the letter
dated 20th February, 2013; the petitioner
sent reply vide letter dated 04th March,
2013 and requested to provide copy of
letter dated 21st January, 2013 pursuant to
which the investigation was initiated
against him; on 04th March, 2013, the
petitioner made an application under Right
to
Information
Act
seeking
certain
information regarding the jurisdiction of
the Economic Offences Wing; same was
replied by the Economic Offences Wing of
the State Government wherein no specific
reply
was
given,
however,
it
was
mentioned that the investigation against
the petitioner was being conducted in
furtherance of G.O. No.V.I.P.-13/25-8-1217(170)/2012 dated 27.11.2012. It is also
stated by the petitioner that the petitioner
reliably learnt that there was neither any
F.I.R. nor any other request from the Life
Insurnace Corporation of India; there is no
direction from the competent court to
investigate the petitioner but it was only a
letter in the form of a complaint from the
District President (Raebareli) of the
Samajwadi
Party
making
vague,
unsubstantiated and incorrect allegations
against the petitioner and his family
members on the basis of which the Chief
Minister's Office required the Economic
Offences
Wing
to
investigate
the
petitioner. It is further stated by the
petitioner that the notice issued by the
Economic Offences Wing is in complete
defiance of law and without registration of
any F.I.R.

4. The petition has been contested by
respondents No.1 to 4 by filing counter
affidavit dated 17.09.2013. Respondent
No.5 has filed the separate counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed
by the petitioner.

5. A supplementary counter affidavit
has
also
been
filed
on
behalf
of
respondents No.1 to 4 dated 03.12.2019. In
the supplementary counter affidavit, it is
stated that Government of U.P. issued
several
Government
Orders
giving
authority/power to the Economic Offices
Wing to enquire into certain matters, and
in this context G.O. dated 30.10.2006 and
G.O. dated 23.06.2015 have been issued, it
is clear from the said Government Orders
that the Economic Offences Wing of U.P.
Police has been empowered to make
enquiries into the matters relating to
revenue and economic matters including
the matters relating to economic offences.
The photocopies of Government Orders
dated 30.10.2006 and 23.06.2015 have
been filed as annexure-SCA-1 and 2
respectively
with
the
supplementary
counter affidavit.

6. The relevant part of the
Government Order dated 30th October,
2006 issued by Government of Uttar
Pradesh reads as under:-

"ि"'kklu ds v)Z'kkldh; i=
la[;k&39@11@70&lh0,Dl&4] fnukad 06-12-
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1989 ds vuqlkj laXkBu dks foospuk gsrq ekeys
laLrqr fd;s tkus ls iwoZ izR;sd ekeys esa
lEcfU/kr foHkkx }kjk izkjfEHkd tkap djkdj ;g
ns[k fy;k tk; fd ekeyk vkfFkZd vijk/k dk gS
;k dsoy foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr gSA ;fn
ekeys esa foHkkx dks vkfFkZd {kfr gqbZ gks vkSj
vkfFkZd vijk/k l`ftr gks rks foHkkx }kjk
lEcfU/kr Fkkus ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fof/kor
vafdr djkdj foospuk djk;s tkus dh laLrqfr
xksiu foHkkx ls dh tk;A

1⁄4x1⁄2 rRdkyhu eq[; lfpo] m0iz0 ds
v)Z
'kkldh;
i=
la[;k&242@25&8&99&171⁄421⁄2@99 fnukad 28-011999 ds vuqlkj iz'kkldh; foHkkxksa }kjk vkWfMV
vkifRr;ksa ,oa izkjfEHkd tkap ls lEcfU/kr izdj.k
vFkZ fo"k;d vfHklwpuk ,oa vuqla/kku laxBu dks
tkap gsrq ;Fkk lEHko lanfHkZr u fd;s tk;A tc
rd tkap es ;g Li"V u gks fd ekeyk vkfFkZd
vijk/k dk curk gSA blh lEcU/k esa eq[; lfpo
ds
v)Z'kk0
i=kad&lh0,e0&32@25&8&2006&171⁄4601⁄2@2005
] fnukad 07 vxLr 2006 es Hkh ;g Hkh Li"V
fd;k x;k gS fd foHkkxh; vfu;ferrkvksa ds
izdj.kksa esa foHkkxksa }kjk vius Lrj ij okafNr
dk;Zokgh u dj mUgsa vFkZ fo"k;d vfHklwpuk ,oa
vuqla/kku laxBu dks tkap gsrq lanfHkZr djuk
mfpr ugha gSA foHkkxh; tkap vkSj vkWfMV djkus
ds ckn ;fn fdlh vf/kdkjh o deZpkjh ds
fo:) vfu;ferrk izdk'k esa vkrh gS rks muds
fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dh tk; vkSj
foHkkx;h dk;Zokgh ds lekiu ij ;fn bl izdkj
dk vkijkf/kd d`R; izFke n`"V;k lkeus vkrk gS
rks lEcfU/kr ds fo:) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ
djus ds mijkUr ekeyk vFkZ fo"k;d vfHklwpuk
,oa vuqla/kku laxBu dks foospuk gsrq lanfHkZr
fd;k tk;A"

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner retired as
Assistant Branch Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India in the year 1997, after
about 16 years of retirement, the petitioner
received a letter dated 20.02.2013 from the
office of Economic Offences Wing U.P.
requiring the petitioner to appear along
with relevant documents; there is no F.I.R.
against
the
petitioner;
there
is
no
complaint
from
the
Life
Insurance
Corporation of India or any direction from
any competent authority to investigate the
petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that one Brijendra Singh
made a complaint to the Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh against the petitioner, the
said complaint was marked to Economic
Offences Wing and on the basis of said
complaint the Economic Offences Wing
has issued a letter dated 20th February,
2013 requiring the petitioner to appear
along with all the relevant documents. He
further submitted that a letter dated 12th
March, 2013 was also issued to the
petitioner requiring him to answer certain
questions mentioned therein.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the Economic
Offences Wing has no jurisdiction to
interrogate
the
petitioner
without
registration of any F.I.R.

10. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents urged that on receiving a
complaint against the petitioner, the
petitioner was asked to appear vide lettter
dated 21st January, 2013, another letter
dated 20th February, 2013 was sent to the
petitioner and another letter dated 12th
March, 2013 was sent to the petitioner
requiring him to submit information
mentioned therein.

11.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondents
further submitted that the letter in question
was sent to the petitioner in terms of
Government Orders dated 30.10.2006 and
2 All. Smt. Leelawati & Ors. Vs. The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lko.
1115
23.06.2015 and the petitioner was asked to
submit information required in the said
letter.

12.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondents also
submitted that it is not necessary to
register F.I.R. and the Economic Offences
Wing can make inquiries/investigation
before registration of F.I.R.

13. We have carefully considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for
both the parties. We have also gone
through the material available on record.

14. At the outset, it may be mentioned
that the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable,
however, the petition is pending since 2013,
interim order was passed on 05.08.2013,
counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents and rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by the petitioner, therefore, the present
petition is being decided on merits.

15. The Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") is an
enactment
designed
to
ensure
a
fair
investigation of the allegations against a person
charge with criminal misconduct. Chapter XII
of the Cr.P.C. deals with Information to the
Police and their powers to investigate into
cases whether cognizable or non-cognizable in
the manner provided therein.

16. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

"154. Information in cognizable
cases.--(1) Every information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence, if given
orally to an officer in charge of a police
station, shall be reduced to writing by him or
under his direction, and be read over to the
informant; and every such information,
whether given in writing or reduced to writing
as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person
giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in
such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a
refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a
police station to record the information
referred to in sub-section (1) may send the
substance of such information, in writing and
by post, to the Superintendent of Police
concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, shall either investigate the
case himself or direct an investigation to be
made by any police officer subordinate to him,
in the manner provided by this Code, and such
officer shall have all the powers of an officer in
charge of the police station in relation to that
offence."

17. Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.
empowers a police officer making an
investigation to require the attendance
before himself or any person who appears
to be acquainted with the circumstances of
the case. Section 161(1) of the Cr.P.C.
gives a right to examine orally any person
supposed to be acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case, sub-Section
2 of Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. exempts a
person from answering any question which
would have a tendency to expose him to a
penal charge or to a penalty for forfeiture.
Under sub-Section 3 of Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. the police officer is empowered to
reduce into writing any statement made to
him in the course of such examination.
Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. expressly lays
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
down that such a statement made in the
course of an investigation, if reduced into
writing is not to be signed by the maker
thereof and no part of such statement
except as expressly provided is to be used
for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in
respect of any such offence under
investigation at the time when the
statement was made. Section 163(1) of the
Cr.P.C. lays down an embargo on the
investigating
authority
using
any
inducement, threat or promise to the maker
which might influence his mind and lead
him to suppose that thereby he would gain
any advantage or avoid any evil in
reference to his conduct as disclosed in the
proceedings. Whereas the other section
contain guidelines for the police officer in
making
investigation,
this
section
expressly provides that any person in a
authority even if he is not a police officer
must guide himself accordingly, in case,
where a crime is being investigated under
this Chapter of the Cr.P.C. Section 169 of
the Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer
making investigation to release an accused
person from custody, if there is no
sufficient evidence or reasonable ground
of suspicion to justify the forwarding of
him to a Magistrate by taking a bond from
him with or without sureties.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of 'P. Sirajuddin, ETC vs. State
of Madras, ETC', 1970 (1) SCC 595
considered the importance of a preliminary
inquiry before the lodging of a first
information report in a matter involving
alleged corruption by a public servant. It
was observed as under:-

"...........................................................
Before a public servant, whatever be his
status, is publicly charged with acts of
dishonesty which amount to serious
misdemeanour or misconduct of the type
alleged in this case and a first information
is lodged against him, there must be some
suitable preliminary enquiry into the
allegations by a responsible officer. The
lodging of such a report against a person,
specially one who like the appellant
occupied the top position in a department,
even if baseless, would do incalculable
harm not only to the officer in particular
but to the department he belonged to, in
general. If the Government had set up a
Vigilance
and
Anti-Corruption
Department as was done in the State of
Madras and the said department was
entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no
exception can be taken to an enquiry by
officers of this department but any such
enquiry must proceed in a fair and
reasonable manner. the enquiring officer
must not act under any preconceived idea
of guilt of the person whose conduct was
being enquired into or pursue the enquiry
in such a manner as to lead to an
inference that he was bent upon securing
the conviction of the said person by
adopting measures which are of doubtful
validity or sanction. The means adopted
no less than the end to be achieved must
be impeccable. In ordinary departmental
proceedings against a Government servant
charged with delinquency, the normal
practice before the issue of a charge-sheet
is for some one in authority to take down
statements of persons involved in the
matter and to examine documents which
have a bearing on the issue involved. It is
only thereafter that a charge-sheet is
submitted and a full-scale enquiry is
launched. When the enquiry is to be held
for the purpose of finding out whether
criminal proceedings are to be resorted to
the scope thereof must be limited to the
examination
of
persons
who
have
2 All. Smt. Leelawati & Ors. Vs. The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lko.
1117
knowledge of the affairs of the delinquent
officer and documents bearing on the same
to find out whether there is prima facie
evidence of guilt of the officer. Thereafter
the ordinary law of the land must take its
course and further inquiry be proceeded
with in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by lodging a first information
report."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized
the
requirement
of
a
preliminary inquiry, where a public
servant is alleged to have committed an act
of
dishonestly
involving
a
serious
misdemeanor.
The
purpose
of
a
preliminary inquiry is to ascertain whether
a cognizable offence is made out on the
basis of which a first information report
can be lodged. On the basis of a first
information report under section 154 of the
Cr.P.C.
is
information
relating
to
commission of cognizable offence which
is furnished to an officer incharge of a
police station. It is with a view to ascertain
whether a cognizable offence seems to
have been implicated in a case involving
an alleged act of corruption by a public
servant that a preliminary inquiry came to
be directed in the judgment in P.
Sirajuddin's case (supra).

20. The Constitution Bench of the
Supreme court in 'Lalita Kumari vs.
State Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others', (2014) 2 SCC 1 after considering
the judgment in P. Sirajuddin's case
(supra) observed that while section 154 of
the
Cr.P.C.
postulates
mandatory
registration of a first information report on
the receipt of information indicating the
commission of a cognizable offence yet
there
could
be
situations
where
a
preliminary inquiry may be required. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated the cases
where a preliminary inquiry may be
warranted and was held:-

"120.5. The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in
which cases preliminary inquiry is to be
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family
disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e)
Cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months delay in reporting the matter
without
satisfactorily
explaining
the
reasons for delay."

21. The purpose of conducting a
preliminary inquiry has been elaborated in
the following manner:-

"119. Therefore, in view of
various
counterclaims
regarding
registration or non-registration, what is
necessary is only that the information
given to the police must disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence. In
such a situation, registration of an FIR is
mandatory. However, if no cognizable
offence is made out in the information
given, then the FIR need not be registered
immediately and perhaps the police can
conduct a sort of preliminary verification
or inquiry for the limited purpose of
ascertaining as to whether a cognizable
offence has been committed. But, if the
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information given clearly mentions the
commission of a cognizable offence, there
is no other option but to register an FIR
forthwith. Other considerations are not
relevant at the stage of registration of FIR,
such as, whether the information is falsely
given, whether the information is genuine,
whether the information is credible, etc.
These are the issues that have to be
verified during the investigation of the
FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR,
what is to be seen is merely whether the
information given ex facie discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. If,
after investigation, the information given
is found to be false, there is always an
option to prosecute the complainant for
filing a false FIR."

22. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid
judgments leads to the conclusion that a
preliminary inquiry is permissible before the
lodging of a first information report.

23. Moreover, Government Orders dated
30.10.2006
and
23.06.2015
issued
by
Government of Uttar Pradesh empower the
Economic Offences Wing to make inquiries
into the matters relating to Economic Offences
Wing.

24. In the instant case, on receipt of a
complaint against the petitioner, Economic
Offences Wing issued a letter dated 21st
January, 2013 to the petitioner, another letter
dated 20th February, 2013 (annexure-1 to the
writ petition) was sent to the petitioner to
appear within one week and submit his reply.
The petitioner instead of appearing in the
office of Economic Offences Wing or filing
reply to the queries made by them, file the
present petition.

25. We are of the considered opinion that
the Economic Offences Wing has taken
recourse to a preliminary inquiry which is
inconsonance with the decision in Lalita
Kumari's case (supra). We do not find any
illegality in the impugned notice dated 20th
February, 2013.

26. In the light of aforesaid discussion,
we are of the view that the writ petition is
without any merit, same deserves to be
dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

27. Interim application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1118

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 4902 of 2019

Jaiswal Canteen(A) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohd. Mansoor, Mohammad Danish

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dinesh Kumar Singh, I.P. Singh,
Ramendra Kumar Yadav, Sanjay Bhasin,
Sunil Sharma

A.
Petitioners-challenging-order
dated
01.12.2018-declaring resp.6-as lowest bidder
&consequential work order in f/o resp.6-on the
ground of-awarding the work in questioncontrary to-terms & condition of e-tender-work
awarded-on the basis of experience certificateupon verification-an agreement also executedpetitioner-least competent-even if-the award is
cancelled-it won't fall in the lap of petitionerPetition Dismissed.