# Ranveer Singh @ Ranbir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-19
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 814 of 2021
- **Bench:** Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranveer-singh-ranbir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47203
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sanction order granted prosecution u/s
19 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988-FIR lodged without departmental
enquiry-chrges
framed
against
the
Petitioner-no reason to interfere in
sanction order.

W.P. dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
otherwise try to obtain undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person.

19. The words " indulge in anti-social
activities refer to the various illustrations/
conditions specified thereafter as (i) to
(xxv).

20. Under the circumstances, the
contention
that
the
impugned
first
information report deserves to be quashed
as it does not fall within the purview of the
definition of a 'Gang' in Section 2(b) of the
Act, cannot be accepted and is hereby,
repelled.

21. The contention of counsel for the
petitioner that recovery of the fire arms and
empty cartridges from the accused in Case
Crime No.286 of 2020 would necessarily
show that the said case against the
petitioner is one of the false implication,
cannot be accepted at this stage. The issue
can be decided only after due investigation.
In any case, the allegations are that the
petitioner interfered in a private dispute
between the two parties, with which, he
prima facie had no connection. It is,
therefore, clearly a case of coercion,
intimidation and use of force against a
person, who is alleged to have refused to
provide electricity to his neighbour, who is
stated to be a friend of the petitioner.

22. In any case, the existence of two
criminal cases against the petitioner is not
in dispute and therefore, in our considered
opinion, no ground exists for quashing the
impugned FIR.

23. Accordingly and for the reasons
given above, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A244
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 814 of 2021

Ranveer Singh @ Ranbir Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Sri Manish Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sri Gyan
Prakash

Sanction order granted prosecution u/s
19 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988-FIR lodged without departmental
enquiry-chrges
framed
against
the
Petitioner-no reason to interfere in
sanction order.

W.P. dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. C.B.I. Vs Ashok Kumar Aggrawal, reported
in (2014) 14 SCC 295

2. Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. & anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC
679

3. State Bank of Hyderabad & anr. Vs P. Kata
Rao , JT 2008 (4) SC 577

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
8 All. Ranveer Singh @ Ranbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
245

1. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and Sri
Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Gyan Prakash learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav as well as Smt. Manju
Thakur, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents.

2. By this writ petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 28th
January, 2020, sanction for prosecution
under
Section
19
of
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, 1988(in short "the Act of
1988").

3. Learned counsel submits that while
the petitioner was working under Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority, an order was issued by the
Authority on 4th June, 2018. Direction was
given to initiate departmental inquiry
against the petitioner and others and at the
same time for registration of F.I.R. The
F.I.R. was lodged without a departmental
inquiry. The petitioner was not named in
the F.I.R. After the investigation, charge
sheet was submitted against the petitioner
also. The court took cognizance of the
offence without sanction for prosecution
and accordingly cognizance order was
quashed by the High Court on a petition
filed by the petitioner.

4. The sanction for prosecution was
given
thereupon.
The
court
took
cognizance of offence. The charges have
also been framed by the Trial Court. It is
submitted that order to sanction prosecution
does not reveal application of mind of the
competent authority which is otherwise a
pre-condition in view of the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of CBI vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggrawal, reported in (2014) 14
SCC 295. The non application of mind is
coming out from bare perusal of the
impugned order. It does not disclose or
give reference of the FIR. The case is
accordingly covered by the judgment in the
case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra).

5. It is also that the FIR could have
been lodged only after conclusion of the
departmental inquiry and not prior to it as
per
the
Government
Order
dated
24.05.2012. A direction has been given that
F.I.R. against an employee or officer can be
lodged after compliance of the order dated
19.7.2005. It is after conclusion of the
departmental inquiry and if any offence is
made out. The government order dated
10.11.2012 has not been complied before
grant of sanction for prosecution, thus the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. We have considered the submission
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.

7. The order dated 28.01.2020 has
been challenged mainly on two grounds;
one by referring to the order dated
24.5.2012. It is submitted that impugned
order has not been passed in strict
compliance to the aforesaid order. A
perusal of the order dated 24.05.2012
shows
that
as
and
when
lapse
or
illegality/irregularity is found in action of
the government officer then after holding a
departmental inquiry, if criminality is
found, the FIR can be registered. We do not
find letter to have sanctity of law. Neither
Cr.P.C. nor the Act of 1988 mandates
departmental inquiry before registration of
the F.I.R. If crime has been committed, it is
not mandatory to hold and depends on the
departmental inquiry before lodging F.I.R.
The
Apex
Court
has
permitted
simultaneous proceeding of departmental
inquiry and the criminal case. A reference
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another,
reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and State
Bank of Hyderabad & another Vs. P.
Kata Rao reported in JT 2008 (4) SC 577
are relevant. The administrative order
cannot override the statutory provision. The
Cr.P.C provides for registration of F.I.R. on
the commission of offence and is not made
subject
to
departmental
enquiry.
Accordingly, challenge to order dated
28.01.2020
on
the
strength
of
administrative order dated 24.05.2012
cannot be accepted. The last paragraph of
the order is quoted herenunder for ready
reference:

"4- इसिे अवतररक्त श्री रणिीर वसंह,
तत्कालीन तहसीलदार सम्प्रवत तहसीलदार, खैर
(अलीगढ़), श्री चमन वसंह, तत्कालीन नायब
तहसीलदार सम्प्रवत तहसीलदार, यमुना एक्सप्रेसिे
औद्योवगि वििास प्रावधिरण तथा श्री पंिज
िुमार, लेखपाल/सम्प्रवत जनपद वबजनौर िो
वनलखित िरते हुए इनिे विरूद्ध विभागीय
िायिाही प्रारम्भ िरने िा िष्ट िरें, तावि इनसे
प्रावधिरण िो हुई हावन िी िसूली िी जा सिे।
साथ-साथ इनिे विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना ररपोटि दजि
िराने िी अनुमवत भी प्रदान िरने िा िष्ट िरें। "

8. The perusal of the para quoted
above does not direct registration of the
F.I.R. after conclusion of Departmental
action. In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged
and pursuant to it, investigation was
conducted. The charge sheet has already
been submitted finding evidence against the
petitioner. The cognizance of the offence
was taken after sanction for prosecution.
The charges have also been framed against
the petitioner.

9. The other argument of the
petitioner is in reference to the judgment in
the
case
of
Ashok
Kumar
Aggarwal(supra). It is urged that the
impugned order has been passed without
application of mind. To analyse the
argument, we have gone through the
impugned order and find that it discloses
offence committed by the petitioner while
working as Tehsildar. Two FIRs have been
lodged involving an amount of Rs.85.49
crores.
The
allegations
against
the
petitioner have been narrated in the
impugned order. It was passed after the
investigation and the report submitted on
31.5.2018 at Annexure No.2 to the writ
petition. Any discussion about the offence
may cause prejudice to either of the parties
in the trial thus we are not going much on
the
facts
when
trial
has
already
commenced.

10. It is true that a reference of the
F.I.R. has not been given by the authorities
in the order but only for that reason, the
sanction for prosecution would not vitiate
even when offence under Section 13(1)(c),
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is
found. The name of the petitioner came
during the course of investigation and
looked into by the competent authorities
while passing the order. Accordingly
charge sheet was filed followed by the
order of cognizance of the offence after the
sanction for prosecution. The charges have
already been framed against the petitioner.
Thus in view of the aforesaid, there
remains no reason to interfere in the order
of sanction for prosecution now.

11. In view of the discussion made
above and taking note of the subsequent
development after passing of the order of
sanction for prosecution dated 28.01.2020,
we do not find any ground to quash it. The
charges have already been framed by the
court against the petitioner. In view of the
8 All. Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
above, the petitioner can take any other
ground for challenge to the order in the
trial.

12.The writ petition, accordingly, fails
and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2021

Mohit Kumar Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Prashant Vyas, Sri
Abhishek Tandon, Sri Renu Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha

Petitioner challenged total 11 FIRsalleged representative of the company
mmet
the
informant
and
placed
purchased orders -but payment never
materialised-bare perusal of the FIR -
specific
allegations
against
the
Petitioner-ingredients
of
cognizable
offences
are
clearly
disclosed-
FIR
cannot be quashed.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (2)
SCC 1048

2. Jagjit Singh Vs St. of Har.& ors., 2004 (13)
SCC 294,

3. Babubhai Vs St. of Guj. & ors., 2010 SCC (12)
254,

4. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs C.B.I. & anr.,
2013 SCC (6) 348,

5. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 160 of 2020, decided on 7
December, 2020.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant
Vyas and Shri Abhishek Tandon, Advocates
for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. Sole petitioner seeks quashing of
11 FIRs detailed below:-

Case Crime No. 0650 of 2020,
under Sections 406, 420 & 506 I.P.C.,
Police Station- Noida Sector-58, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 24.12.2020),
Case Crime No. 0021 of 2021, under
Sections 406, 420 & 504, 120-B & 34
I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida,
District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated
19.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0022 of 2021,
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58
Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated
19.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0023 of 2021,
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58
Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated
20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0024 of 2021,
under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 120-B & 34 I.P.C., Police Station-
Noida Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam
Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case
Crime No. 0025 of 2021, under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 34 & 506