# Shila Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 642
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24999 of 2013
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shila-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42876
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-197Sanction for prosecution-offence under
Section 306,506,323, ILO-B IPC against
police personal-on direction of High CourtC.B.C.I.D. Completed investigation found
those police persons involved-applied for
sanction accompanied with investigation
report-after 6 month by impugned orderrejection on ground no possibility of
conviction-held-such opinion-tailor made
to suit the police officers involved-ignoring
the impact of High Court direction-order
quashed with direction to pass fresh order
in accordance with law keeping in view of
direction of High Court.

Held: Para-15
We have no hesitation to record that
such reports, which do not even take
into consideration as to what has been
found and recorded by the C.B.C.I.D in
its
report
seeking
prosecution,
is
patently unjust. The opinion appears to
be tailor-made to suit only the interest of
the police officers involved. Even the
order
of
the
High
Court
dated
22.07.2011 and its impact has gone
unnoticed in
the report of Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.

Case Law discussed:
(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 515.

## Text

642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
six years of the alteration of the Master Plan
in the year 2006-2007 cannot be entertained.
Even otherwise no other ground has been
raised to challenge the Master Plan, which is
a Legislative Act.

11. Consequently, we do not find
any merit in this petition.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly,
rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24999 of
2013

Shila Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri V.C. Mishra (Advocate General)

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-197Sanction for prosecution-offence under
Section 306,506,323, ILO-B IPC against
police personal-on direction of High CourtC.B.C.I.D. Completed investigation found
those police persons involved-applied for
sanction accompanied with investigation
report-after 6 month by impugned orderrejection on ground no possibility of
conviction-held-such opinion-tailor made
to suit the police officers involved-ignoring
the impact of High Court direction-order
quashed with direction to pass fresh order
in accordance with law keeping in view of
direction of High Court.

Held: Para-15
We have no hesitation to record that
such reports, which do not even take
into consideration as to what has been
found and recorded by the C.B.C.I.D in
its
report
seeking
prosecution,
is
patently unjust. The opinion appears to
be tailor-made to suit only the interest of
the police officers involved. Even the
order
of
the
High
Court
dated
22.07.2011 and its impact has gone
unnoticed in
the report of Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.

Case Law discussed:
(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 515.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard P. K. Upadhyay, counsel
for the petitioner and V. C. Mishra,
Advocate General on behalf of the State
as well as other respondent authorities.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order
dated
23.05.2013
passed
by
Principal
Secretary, Home, Government of U. P.,
Lucknow whereby he has refused to grant
sanction for prosecution of three police
personnel in Case Crime No.829 of 2010
under Sections 306, 506, 323, 120 B IPC.

3. Facts in short as on record of the
present writ petition are as follows :

FIR being Case Crime No.829 of
2010, under Sections 306, 506, 323, 120
B IPC, P. S.Kerakat, District-Jaunpur was
registered on 20.10.2010, by Smt. Shila,
mother of the deceased Yogendra Kumar.
In the FIR it was mentioned that her son
Yogendra Kumar was forced to commit
suicide because of the undue pressures
brought upon him by his accused wife as
well as by constables Prabhu Nath Ram,
2 All] Shila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
Madhusudan Mishra and S.I., Vikas
Pandey, In-Charge of the police outpostGaddi.

4. The case was investigated by civil
police, a charge sheet was filed against the
wife of the deceased only. The informantmother filed Writ Petition No.23269 of 2010
alleging therein that the investigation has not
been done in free and fair manner because of
the involvement of the police officers as
detailed above. The investigation had not
been done in the right direction with specific
reference to the suicide note recovered near
the dead body of the deceased as well as in
respect of the deceased being called at the
police station and being asked to wait for
long periods and being harassed by the police
officers without making any mention of the
same in the G.D.

5. The High Court after considering
the facts pleaded by the mother and after
affording opportunity to the prosecution and
the State-respondents, it came to a
conclusion vide order dated 22.07.2011 that
the investigation has not been done by the
Investigating Officer in right direction
specifically with reference to the suicide
note and summoning of the victim to the
police
outpost
on
18.10.2010
and
20.10.2010 where he is alleged to have been
tortured. The details of his being called to
the police outpost were not mentioned in the
G.D. of the respective dates. In the totality
of the facts on record the High Court went
on to pass following orders :

"The investigation has not been made by
the I.O. on the basis of the suicide note but
during the pendency of the writ petition the
I.O. completed the investigation in which the
charge sheet has been proposed only against
Smt. Reena Devi, wife of the deceased, but this
court has directed not to submit any police
report before the court concerned till further
order of this court, at this stage it is not proper
to discuss all the facts and the allegations but
the circumstances are of such nature in which
for ensuring the fair investigation, the
investigation of the above mentioned case is
required to be done by the investigating
agency other than the local police because the
allegations have been made against three
police personnel of the same police station
where the alleged occurrence has taken place.
Therefore, we direct that the investigation of
case crime no.829 of 2010 under sections 306,
506, 323 and 120-B IPC, P.S.Kerakat,
District-Jaunpur shall be done by the
C.B.C.I.D. The S.P. Jaunpur is directed to
ensure that shall be handed over to C.B.C.I.D.
Forthwith, who shall submit the police report
after completing the investigation before the
court concerned.

Accordingly the writ petition is
finally disposed of."

6. In terms of the order of the High
Court
C.B.C.I.D
proceeded
with
the
investigation. It prepared a draft police
report. Thereafter, C.B.C.I.D made an
application to the State Government vide
letter dated 3 December 2012 for sanction
being granted for the prosecution of the
police officers. The said application was
accompanied with the details of the
investigation done by the C.B.C.I.D. On
receipt of the said application it appears that
the Principal Secretary, Home, U. P.
Government, who was competent person to
sanction prosecution, asked for a report from
the Law Department of the State of U.P.
Special Secretary (Law) & Addl. Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow
submitted a report on 23.05.2013 i.e. after six
months of the receipt of the application for
sanction of the prosecution. On the basis of
said legal opinion the Principal Secretary,
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Home has proceeded to pass the order dated
23.05.2013 impugned in the petition. He has
refused to grant sanction for prosecution, the
reason assigned in the order for the purpose
reads as follows :

"bl leca/k esa eq>s dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS
fd mijksDr nks"kh iqfyldfeZ;ksa ds fo:} vfHk;kstu
Lohd`fr iznku fd;s tkus ds miyC/k lk{;ksa @
vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij lQyrk dh lEHkkouk {kh.k
gksuk ik;s tkus ij 'kklu }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr
mDr nks"kh iqfyldfeZ;ksa ds fo:} vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr
iznku fd;s tkus dk vkSfpR; ugha ik;k x;k gSA"

7. Before we address ourselves to the
report of the Special Secretary (Law) & Addl.
Legal Remembrances it may be recorded that
the order of the Principal Secretary, Home does
not even refer to the report of the Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances.

8. It is settled law that the orders are to
be judged for the reasons recorded therein.
From the order of the State Government dated
23.05.2013 it is clear that the only reason
disclosed is that on the basis of the evidence
available on the records, the chances of
offence being brought home against the police
officers are minimal. Therefore, sanction for
prosecution is being refused.

9. We may record that, from page 9 of
the report of the C.B.C.I.D., which has been
enclosed as Annexure No.1 along with the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State,
sufficient facts and materials have been
disclosed for charge sheet being filed against
the police officers and the matter being
investigated against them also.

10. In paragraphs 10 (2) and 10(3)
of
the
report
of
C.B.C.I.D.,
the
explanation of the police officers, the
reason for not accepting the same and the
evidence relied upon in support of the
conclusion drawn by the C.B.C.I.D. has
specifically been mentioned along with
the recommendation in the matter.

11. The relevant portion of the
report of the C.B.C.I.D. is being quoted
herein below :

"blds vfrfjDr LFkkuh; iqfyl ds tks izFke
lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ukfer mifujh{kd izHkkjh pkSdh Fkkuk
xn~nh Jh fodkl ik.Ms; iq= Lo0 jke fujatu
ik.Ms; fuoklh lR;kuxat Fkkuk vgjkSjk fetkZiqj
gky rSukrh lajk; iq[rk iqfyl pkSdh Fkkuk lnj
dksrokyh tuin tkSuiqj vkj{kh 984 uk0iq0 e/kqlwnu
feJk iq= Lo0 lq/khj feJk fu0 pks[kuk Fkkuk estk
tuin bykgkckn gky irk Fkkuk cMslj tuin
xkthiqj o vkj{kh 113 uk0 iq0 izHkw ukFk jke iq= Jh
'kadj jke fuoklh xzke pkspdiqj Fkkuk dj.Mk
tuin xkthiqj gky irk Fkkuk dqjkao tuin
bykgkckn ds fo:} e`rd ;ksxsUnz xqIrk dks
vukf/kd`r :i ls iqfyl pkSdh Fkkuk xn~nh cqykdj
iRuh ds lkeus izrkfMr ,oa viekfur fd;k x;k
rFkk vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk o e`rd ;ksxsUnz
}kjk fn, x;s izkFkZuk i= dk u rks th0 Mh0 esa
vken fd;k vkSj u gh cjoDr okilh vkSj u gh
Jherh jhuk xqIrk dks ?kj ds vanj dejs esa can ik;s
tkus dk rfLdjk th0 Mh0 esa vafdr fd;k tks fof/k
fo:} gS vkSj vukf/kd`r :i ls okfnuh] okfnuh ds
ifr fo'oukFk xqIrk] jkds'k xqIrk ,oa xkao ds lqjsUnz
dsoV] lkew flag] f'ko dqekj xqIrk] yYyu ;knu o
fnyhi dqekj flag vkfn ds dFkuks ,oa e`rd ds
lqlkbV uksV ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ;ksxsUnz dks iqfyl
us pkSdh Fkkuk xn~nh ij cSBk;s j[kk ,oa ljsvke
viekfur fd;k ftlds dkj.k ;ksxsUnz us Xykfuo'k
vkRegR;k dj yh tks /kkjk 306@342@506 Hkk0 na0
fo0 ds varxZr izFke n`"V;k vijk/k dks izekf.kr gksuk
ik;k x;k gSA

10 1⁄421⁄2 vfHk;qDrksa dk Li"Vhdj.k o cpko ds
rdZ%&

Jherh xhrk xqIrk ds NksVs HkkbZ fot; xqIrk
}kjk fnukad 12&10&10 dks iqfyl pkSdh Fkkuk xn~nh
ds izHkkjh mifujh{kd fodkl ik.Ms; ds uke fn;s
x;s f'kdk;rh izkFkZuki= ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ;ksxsUnz
dks vkj{kh e/kqlwnu feJk ,oa vkj{kh izHkw ukFk jke
}kjk iqfyl pkSdh pkSjkgs ij iwNrkN gsrq cqykdj
yk;k x;k Fkk fdUrq rhuks iqfyldfeZ;ksa }kjk pkSjkgs
2 All] Shila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
ij ;ksxsUnz xqIrk dks ekjus ihVus] xkyh xykSt djus
vFkok viekfur u fd;s tkus ds rdZ fn;s x;s gSA

10 1⁄431⁄2 vfHk;qDrksa ds Li"Vhdj.k o cpko ds
rdksZ dks u ekuus dk dkj.k%&

vfHk;qDrksa }kjk fd;k x;k dFku ek= vius
cpko esa fn;k x;k gS tks ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA
vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:} U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= izsf"kr
fd;s tkus o U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr fd;s tkus gsrq
i;kZIr lk{; miyC/k gSA

10 1⁄441⁄2 lcwr i{k ,oa cpko i{k ds rF;ksa dk
fo'ys"k.k%&

mifujhf{kd Jh fodkl ik.Ms; vkj{kh Jh
e/kqlwnu feJk ,oa vkj{kh Jh izHkwukFk jke }kjk
vafdr djk;k x;k dFku ek= vius vki dks cpkus
dh fu;r ls fn;k x;k gSA

vijk/k 'kk[kk dh foospuk ls mijksDr
vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:} izFke n`"V;k vijk/k vUrxZr
/kkjk 306@342@506 Hkk0 na0 fo0 izekf.kr gSA

fu"d"kZ%&

foospuk ds e/; ladfyr ekSf[kd vfHkys[kh;
,oa
ifjfLFkfrtU;
lk{;ksa
ds
fo'ys"k.k
ls
f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh 'khyk nsoh }kjk fnukad 23&10&10
dks iathd`r djk;s x;s izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa fot;
xqIrk] vt; dqekj xqIrk] gjh yky mi fujh0 fodkl
ik.Ms; vkj{kh e/kqlwnu feJk ,oa vkj{kh izHkwukFk jke
dks ukfer fd;k gS ftlesa ls vt; dqekj xqIrk] gjh
yky xqIrk ds fo:} fdlh vijk/k dk izekf.kr gksuk
ugha ik;k x;k gSA cfYd izFke lwpuk esa ukfer
vfHk;qDr Jherh jhuk xqIrk iRuh e`rd ;ksxsUnz dqekj
xqIrk ,oa vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk iq= vxuw
xqIrk 1⁄4e`rd ;ksxsUnz dk lkyk1⁄2 ds }kjk thou;kiu o
ngst mRihMu dks ysdj ,d i{kh; vnkyrh
dk;Zokgh ,oa >waBk vfHk;ksx iathd`r djk;k x;k Fkk
ftlds mRihMu ,oa vkfFkZd raxh ds dkj.k ;ksxsUnz
xqIrk }kjk vius gh edku esa yxs lhfyax Qsu esa
yqaxh ls Qank cukdj vkRegR;k dj fy;k x;kA
lanfHkZr vfHk;ksx ds foospuk rRrdkyhu {ks=kf/kdkjh
dsjkdr Jh us=iky flag }kjk dh x;h rFkk
foospuksijkUr Jherh jhuk xqIrk }kjk vius ifr
e`rd ;ksxsUnz dqekj xqIrk dks iw.kZ:is.k mRihfMr
djus dk nks"kh ik;s tkus ij dsoy Jherh jhuk xqIrk
iRuh e`rd ;ksxsUnz dqekjx xqIrk fuoklh [kxZlsuiqj
]Fkkuk dsjkdr tuin tkSuiqj gky irk xzke
fVdjx< Fkkuk nsoxkao vktex< ds fo:} /kkjk 306
Hkk0na0 fo0 dk vijk/k l`ftr gksuk ik;k gS ] 'ks"k
izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ukfer vt; xqIrk iq=x.k
vxuw] gjh yky vxuw o unuyky ds fo:} vijk/k
dk l`ft gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA LFkkuh; iqfyl ds
foospd }kjk Jherh jhuk xqIrk ds fo:} fnukad
31&3&11 dks vkjksi i= la[;k 08@11 /kkjk 306
Hkk0na0 fo0 izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS vijk/k 'kk[kk dh
foospuk ls LFkkuh; iqfyl }kjk izsf"kr vkjksi i= esa
fdlh ifjorZu dh vko';drk ugha gSA fot; dqekj
xqIrk iq= vxuw xqIrk fuoklh fVdjx< Fkkuk nsoxkat
tuin vktex< ds fo:} vijk/k la[;k dh xgu
foospuk ls viuh cgu Jherh jhuk xqIrk ds lkFk
lkFk e`rd ;ksxsUnz dks Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k fd;s
tkus ds fy, mRrsftr djus ds dkj.k /kkjk
306@120ch0] Hkk0na0fo0 ds vijk/k dk nks"kh ik;k
x;k gSA blds vfrfjdRk LFkkuh; iqfyl ds tks izFke
lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ukfer mifujh{kd izHkkjh pkSdh Fkkuk
xn~nh Jh fodl dqekj ik.Ms; iq= Lo0 jke fujatu
ik.Ms; fuoklh lR;kuxat Fkkuk vgjkSjk fetkZiqj
gky rSukrh lajk;iq[rk iqfyl pkSdh Fkkuk lnj
dksrokyh tuin tkSuiqj vkj{kh 984 uk0 iq0
e/kqlwnu feJk iq= Lo0 lq/khj feJk fuoklh pks[kuk
Fkkuk estk tuin bykgkckn gky irk Fkkuk cMslj
tuin xkthiqj o vkj{kh 113 uk0 iq0 izHkwukFk jke
iq= Jh 'kadj jke fuoklh xzke pkspyiqj Fkkuk
dj.Mk tuin xkthiqj gky irk Fkkuk dqjkao tuin
bykgkckn ds fo:} e`rd ;ksxsUnz xqIrk dks
vukf/kd`r :i ls iqfyl pkSdh Fkkuk xn~nh cqykdj
iRuh ds lkeus izrkfMr ,oa viekfur fd;k x;k
rFkk vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk o e`rd ;ksxsUnz
}kjk fn, x;s izkFkZuki= dk u rks th0Mh0 esa vken
fd;k vkSj u gh cjoDr okilh vkSj u gh Jherh
jhuk xqIrk dks ?kj ds vanj dejs esa can ik;s tkus
dk rkfLdjk th0Mh0 esa vafdr fd;kA tks fof/k
fo:} gS vkSj vukf/kd`r :i ls okfnuh ds ifr
fo'oukFk xqIrk] jkds'k xqIrk ,oa xkao ds lqjsUnz dsoV]
lkew flag] f'ko dqekj xqIrk] yYyu ;kno o fnyhi
dqekj flag vkfn ds dFkuksa ,oa e`rd ds lqlkbV
uksV ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ;ksxsUnz dks iqfyl us pkSdh
Fkkuk xn~nh ij cSBk;s j[kk ,oa ljsvke viekfur
fd;k ftlds dkj.k ;ksxsUnz us xykfuo'k vkRegR;k
dj yh tks /kkjk 306@342@506@120 ch] Hkk0 na0
fo0 ds vUrxZr izFke n`"V;k vijk/k dk izekf.kr
gksuk ik;k x;k gSA

laLrqfr%&
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

vijk/k 'kk[kk dh lEiw.kZ foospuk ds e/;
miyC/k vfHkys[kh;@ekSf[kd ,oa ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{;
ds fo'ys"k.k ls vfHk;qDr Jherh jhuk xqIrk iRuh Lo0
;ksxsUnz dqekj xqIrk ,oa vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk
iq= vxuw xqIrk ds fo:} /kkjk 306@120ch] Hkk0 na0
fo0 dk vijk/k izekf.kr gksuk ik;k x;k gSA Jherh
jhuk xqIrk ds fo:} tuinh; iqfyl ds foospd
}kjk iwoZ esa vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS
ftlesa fdlh cnyko dh vko';drk ugh gSA vr%
vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk ds fo:} /kkjk
306@120 ch0] Hkk0 na0 fo0 ds vUrxZr /kkjk 173
na0 ia0 la0 ds rgr iwjd vkjksi i= izsf"kr ,oa mi
fujh{kd izHkkjh] pkSdh Fkkuk xn~nh Jh fodkl ik.Ms;]
vkj{kh e/kqlwnu feJk o vkj{kh izHkwukFk jke ds fo:}
/kkjk 306@342@506@120ch] Hkk0na0 fo0 dk vijk/k
izFke n`"V;k izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA ek0 U;k;ky; esa
vfHk;ksx pyk;s tkus gsrq i;kZIr lk{; gSA vfHk;qDr
jhuk xqIrk o vfHk;qDr fot; dqekj xqIrk ds fo:}
vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dh vko';drk ugha gS buds
fo:} vkjksii= izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gSA

vr% mifujh{kd@rRdk0 izHkkjh pkSdh Fkkuk
xn~nh Jh fodkl ik.Ms; vkj{kh e/kqlwnu feJk o
vkj{kh izHkwukFk jke mijksDr dks U;k;ky; esa
vfHk;kstu fd;s tkus gsrq /kkjk 197 1⁄421⁄2 na0 iz0
la0 ds vUrxZr vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ,oa /kkjk 45
1⁄421⁄2 na0 iz0 la0 ds vUrxZr fxjQrkj fd;s tkus
dh vuqefr okafNr gSA lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh
vuqjks/k gS fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds fy, frfFk
fu/kkZfjr dj voxr djkus dh d`ik djs rkfd
lecfU/kr foospd dks le; ls fopkj foe'kZ
fd;s tkus gsrq Hkstk tk ldsA"

12. From the order of the State
Government, it is apparently clear that there
has been complete non application of mind to
the facts disclosed in the report of the
C.B.C.I.D. along with the evidence collected
and reasons assigned for investigation being
done against the police officers also.

13. Now turning to the AnnexureCA-2 of the counter affidavit i.e. report of
the Special Secretary (Law) & Addl.
Legal Remembrances, Govt. of U.P.,
Lucknow, which is alleged to be the basis
for passing the order impugned. We may
record that the report runs in two and half
pages. The first two pages deals with the
investigation done by the civil police,
which was not accepted by the High
Court
as
per
its
judgment
dated
22.07.2011
referred
to
above
and
investigation
was
directed
through
C.B.C.I.D. The facts upto that stage are
not of much relevance. The later part of
the report contains the judgment of
Supreme
Court,
which
deals
with
protection to be provided to the officers. It
is the law applicable.

14. The consideration of the report of the
C.B.C.I.D is only in the last paragraph of the
opinion of Rangnath Pandey, Special Secretary
(Law) & Addl. Legal Remembrances, Govt. of
U.P., Lucknow, which reads as follows :

"bl izdkj iz'kklfud foHkkx }kjk i`"B 18 ls 22
ij vafdr fVIIk.kh rFkk foospukf/kdkjh }kjk voxr djk;s
x;s rF;ksa ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd vijk/k 'kk[kk] vijk/k
vuqla/kku foHkkx y[kuÅ ds i= fnukad 14&2&2012 ds
lkFk layXu vfHkys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{;ksa ds izdk'k esa
eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 829@1010] vUrxZr /kkjk
306]506] 323] 120ch] Hkk0 na0 fo0 Fkkuk dsjkdr tuin
tkSuiqj ls lecfU/kr mifujh{kd fodkl ik.Ms; vkj{kh
izHkwukFk vkSj vkj{kh e/kqlwnu ds fo:} vfHk;kstu
Lohd`fr iznku fd;s tkus ij lQyrk dh lEHkkouk {kh.k
izrhr gksrh gSA"

15. We have no hesitation to record
that such reports, which do not even take
into consideration as to what has been
found and recorded by the C.B.C.I.D in
its report seeking prosecution, is patently
unjust. The opinion appears to be tailormade to suit only the interest of the police
officers involved. Even the order of the
High Court dated 22.07.2011 and its
impact has gone unnoticed in the report of
Special Secretary (Law) & Addl. Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.
2 All] Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647

16. From the records we find that for
six months no action was taken in the matter
of passing of the orders in respect of the
application to sanction for prosecution made
by the C.B.C.I.D. It was only when a
contempt petition was filed before the High
Court being Contempt Petition No.2689 of
2012 that the State Government got an
opinion from the Special Secretary (Law) &
Addl. Legal Remembrances noted above.
Thereafter, the Special Secretary (Law) &
Addl. Legal Remembrances, Govt. of U.P.,
Lucknow has proceeded to refuse the sanction
for prosecution. We may record that the date
fixed in the contempt proceedings for decision
being taken on the request of the C.B.C.I.D
was 27.05.2013.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances we
feel it just and proper to quash the order dated
23.05.2013. It is ordered accordingly.

18. Having regard to the report of the
C.B.C.I.D we direct the Principal Secretary,
Home, Govt. of U. P., Lucknow to revisit the
matter and act in accordance with law
preferably within a period of two weeks of
the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It
may only to be noticed that the High Court in
its order dated 22.07.2011 quoted above had
specifically directed that the report shall be
submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. to the Court
concerned.

19. So far as Rangnath Pandey, Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U. P., Lucknow is
concerned, he is a judicial officer on deputation
with the State Government. He is cautioned to
be more careful in future.

20. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2014) 1
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 515.

21. We have gone through the
judgment and we find that the same is clearly
distinguishable in the facts of the case.

22. Writ petition is allowed with
aforesaid observations.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61522 of 2012

Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri L.C. Srivastava, Sri Neeraj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection of
status and pay-given by High Courtconfirmed by Apex Court-petitioner working
as Project officer under Basic Education
department-by order 23.03.01 treated excadre holder post-quashed-with finding once
government decided to absorbs considering
long
period
of
their
service-petitioner
became surplus employee entitled for pay
protection as well as status-by impugned
order government again decide to absorbs
on post of LT grade-in revise pay scale-heldorder nothing but mud wash quasheddirection to reconsider fisibility of pay
protection as well as status-if found entitled
shall be given every consequential benefit.

Held: Para-14