# Regulation 61(1), in Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, is correct."

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 410
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-08
- **Bench:** S. V.Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/regulation-61-1-in-narendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-is-correct-42175
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-quashing of FIRallegations of procuring forged willcancellation under consideration in Civil
suit-FIR lodged after 10 years-in view of
Shushil Suri Case-held-not availablefrom perusal of allegations-can not be
termed mala-fide-can not be interfereddirection to consider Bail Application
1 All] Shiv Pratap Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
411
keeping in view of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
as well as Full Bench decision of
Amrawati case-given.

Held: Para 5 and 6

Perusal of the material available on
record,
makes
out
commission
of
cognizable offence by the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid facts, at this
stage, on the basis of document filed it
cannot be said that the F.I.R. was lodged
due to malafide against the applicant.
During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that
he is willing to face the trial and
surrender
before
the
Court
and
necessary
direction
be
given
for
protection of his liberty.
Case law discussed:
2009 (3) ADJ 332 (SC); 2004 (57) ALR 290

## Text

410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
consent of the 'Committee of Management'
as provided in proviso (1) to Regulation
61(1) of the Regulations as above? and

2. Whether the interpretation given by
learned Single Judge in favour of such
consent given by Prabandh Sanchalak to be
valid by interpreting proviso (1) to
Regulation 61(1), in Narendra Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others, is correct."

16. In view of the above reference, a
learned Single Judge also referred Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46320 of 2004,
Yashoda Raj Kumari Kunjil Vs. State of
U.P. and others, for consideration by the
Larger Bench.

17. The said questions were answered
by the Larger Bench by its decision dated
8.9.2010 holding that "once an Authorized
Controller/
Prabandh
Sanchalak/
Administrator is appointed, such a person
will exercise all powers conferred by the
Scheme of Administration and in addition
the powers conferred by the various Acts,
Regulations and the Rules."The said
decision is reported in Yashoda Rajkumari
Kunjil Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011)
1 UPLBEC 370.

18. It will thus be noticed that the
main contention made by the petitionerappellant in the Writ Petition as also in the
present Special Appeal stands answered
against the petitioner-appellant, and it is
evident that the Prabandh Sanchalak of the
institution in question was authorized to
give consent and No-Objection Certificate
in respect of the transfer of the respondent
no.6 on the post of Principal to the
institution in question.

19.

In
the
circumstances,
no
interference is called for with the judgment
and order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant
challenging
the
transfer
order
dated
5.9.2008.

20. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel
for the petitioner-appellant has fairly stated
that the petitioner-appellant has already
retired on 30.6.2009.

21. In view of the above, the Special
Appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant is
liable to be dismissed, and the same is
accordingly dismissed.

22. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
orders as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. V.SINGH RATHORE, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1369 of 2012

Shiv Pratap Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P Thru Principal Secy.,
Home., and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-quashing of FIRallegations of procuring forged willcancellation under consideration in Civil
suit-FIR lodged after 10 years-in view of
Shushil Suri Case-held-not availablefrom perusal of allegations-can not be
termed mala-fide-can not be interfereddirection to consider Bail Application
1 All] Shiv Pratap Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
411
keeping in view of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
as well as Full Bench decision of
Amrawati case-given.

Held: Para 5 and 6

Perusal of the material available on
record,
makes
out
commission
of
cognizable offence by the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid facts, at this
stage, on the basis of document filed it
cannot be said that the F.I.R. was lodged
due to malafide against the applicant.
During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that
he is willing to face the trial and
surrender
before
the
Court
and
necessary
direction
be
given
for
protection of his liberty.
Case law discussed:
2009 (3) ADJ 332 (SC); 2004 (57) ALR 290

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.V. Singh Rathore, J.)

1. By means of this application u/s
482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed
that the F.I.R. dated 23.12.11 bearing
case Crime No. 270/11 P.S. Fatanpur,
Pratapgarh, District ? Pratapgarh and
chargesheet dated 19.1.2012 be quashed
and also order dated 27.1.2012 passed
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Pratapgarh, by which the applicant was
summoned, on the chargesheet be
quashed.

2. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that his case
is covered by the guideline No. 7 laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Haryana and others v.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC
604. It is further submitted that the
matter regarding the genuineness of the
'will' is still pending before the court of
competent
Civil
and
Revenue
jurisdiction, the F.I.R. of this case has
been lodged after considerable delay of
10 years.

3. Law is settled on the point that
the power u/s 482 Cr.P. C. has to be
exercised
sparingly.
Hon'ble
Apex
Court in a recent judgment in the case of
Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2011)2 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 764 , in paragraph 16 has
held as under :-

"16.Section
482
Cr.P.C.
itself
envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised by the High Court, namely, (I)
to give effect to an order under
Cr.P.C;(ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of court; and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is trite that
although the power possessed by the
High Court under the said provision is
very wide but it is not unbridled. It has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for which alone
the Court exists. Nevertheless, it is
neither feasible nor desirable to lay
down any inflexible rule which would
govern
the
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction of the Court. Yet, in
numerous cases, this Court has laid
down certain broad principles which
may be borne in mind while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Though it is emphasized that exercise of
inherent powers would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case,
but the common thread which runs
through all the decisions on the subject
is that the Court would be justified in
invoking its inherent jurisdiction where
the allegations made in the complaint or
charge-sheet, as the case may be, taken
at their face value and accepted in their
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged."

4. In the facts of this case there is
specific allegation against the applicant
that he fabricated a 'will' and after
investigation police has filed charge
sheet
against
him.
The
petitioner
submits that he has falsely been
implicated in this case because of the
malafide of the opposite parties no. 2 to
4.

5. Perusal of the material available
on record, makes out commission of
cognizable offence by the applicant.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, at
this stage, on the basis of document
filed it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was
lodged due to malafide against the
applicant.
During
the
course
of
arguments, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that he is willing to
face the trial and surrender before the
Court and necessary direction be given
for protection of his liberty.

7.

Keeping
in
view
the
aforementioned
legal
position,
the
petition lacks merit and it deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

8. Since in this case, F.I.R. was
lodged after 10 years and a civil dispute
regarding the correctness of the 'will' is
also pending before the Court of
competent
Civil
and
Revenue
jurisdiction. Therefore, it is provided
that in case petitioner surrenders before
the trial court within a period of 15 days
from today then his bail application
shall be considered by the Courts below
expeditiously, in the light of guidelines
provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh
V.
State
of U.P.
2009(3)
ADJ322(SC) and Amrawati & another
V. State of U.P. 2004(57)ALR 290, if
possible on the same day.

9. During this period of 15 days
the petitioner shall not be arrested.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR,J.

Special Appeal No. - 2124 of 2011

State of U.P. and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Namrata Singh
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Y.K. Srivastava
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.A. Akhtar
Sri B.K. Mishra

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Petitioner obtained Degree of Shiksha
Shashtri-equivalents
to
B.Ed.
On
13.07.1999-institution in question was
granted permission to run B.Ed. Classes
in the year 1998-99-by NCERT-can not
be denied from Training of Special B.T.C
course.

Held: Para 6

The contention of the appellant has been
rebutted by the petitioner-respondent. A
counter affidavit along with letter of the
NCTE dated 5.8.2004 has been filed
wherein it has been mentioned that Sri
Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha,
New
Delhi
had
been
granted recognition by the Northern