# Vishwa Bandhu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 22266 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwa-bandhu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52809
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

12 All. Vishwa Bandhu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1291

26. The order dated 30.05.2024 is
recalled. The petition is restored to its
original number and status.
---------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 22266 of 2024

Vishwa Bandhu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether an application under section 528
BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for quashing
the FIR.

HEADNOTES
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420,
464, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120B

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3), 162,
482, - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections
420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120B, -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 528, - Constitution of India -
Article 226, 227 - Application under Section
482 CrPC - filed for quashing of FIR - offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC -
allegations regarding forged power of attorney
and fraudulent sale deed - investigation initiated
pursuant to order under Section 156(3) CrPC -
applicant pleaded that two FIRs cannot be
lodged for the same offences and civil dispute
cloaked as criminal case - opposite party raised
objection of maintainability citing Ram Lal Yadav
- chargesheet already filed but not placed on
record along with cognizance order - Court
examined scope of quashing under Article 226
and Section 528 BNSS in light of Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni - Court held that without placing the
chargesheet and cognizance order on record,
FIR cannot be quashed under Section 528 BNSS
- accordingly, application is dismissed as not
maintainable. (Para - 12, 13, 18)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
T.T. Antony v. State of UP, (2001) 6 SCC 181 -
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7 SCC
581 - G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2
SCC 636 - Usha Chakraborth v. State of West
Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 - Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC
673 - Ram Lal Yadav v. State of UP, 1989 APLJ
(Cri) 107 - Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of
Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025
(decided 03.09.2025), - Writ - C No. 2972/2022
decided on 23.05.2022 (Neutral Citation NO.
2022:AHC-LKO:27578).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Constitution
of India - Indian Penal Code (IPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of FIR - Duplicate FIR - Abuse of
process - Civil dispute vs. criminal offence -
Forged power of attorney - Sale deed dispute -
Maintainability of application - Cognizance and
chargesheet - Article 226 jurisdiction - Section
528 BNSS.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 192 of 2024 arising out from -
FIR No. 192/2024, dated 14.06.2024, P.S. - Civil
Lines, District - Meerut.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Alok Saxena,
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra, Sri S.B. Singh AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar
Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Alok Saxena, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the
State respondents and perused the affidavit filed
in support of this application.
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Present application under Section
528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (for the sake of brevity
'BNSS') has been filed for quashing the
first information report dated 14.6.2024
registered as P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut,
giving rise to the registration of Crime No
192 of 2024 against the applicant and two
others for the offences under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It has been contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the instant
first information report which has been
lodged is an abuse of process of the Court
as on similar facts, earlier first information
report bearing no. 0039 of 2022 was lodged
on 3.2.2022 against 04 persons, namely,
Narendra Singh Tomar, Satish Tewatiya,
Hareram Dua and Jatin Dua for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 471,
386 and 120B, P.S. Transport Nagar,
District Meerut (annexure 4 to the memo of
application). It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicant that
chargesheet in the said case has already
been filed and the learned Magistrate has
also taken cognizance of the offences
described in the chargesheet. It is also
much after registration of the FIR no. 0039
of 2022, the opposite party no. 2 in his
capacity as Manager of the Society filed an
application under Section 156(3) Criminal
Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as
the 'CrPC') against the applicant and two
others before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut and the same was
allowed vide order dated 7.6.2024 and the
concerned Police Station was directed to
register the FIR against the applicant and
two others and to investigate the offence in
accordance with law. It is further submitted
by the learned counsel for the applicant that
instant FIR is illegal as two FIRs cannot be
lodged for the same offences in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
T.T. Antony vs. State of UP, (2001)6 SCC
181 as the second FIR is barred by the
provisions of Section 162 of the CrPC. It is
further submitted that on close perusal of
FIR No. 39 of 2022, it would emerge that
the substratum of the said FIR and the
instant FIR is the same. It is further
submitted that even if the allegation made in
the instant FIR is taken to be true on its face
value, then no offence under the aforesaid
sections is made out against the applicant. It
is also submitted that no falsification of a
document within the meaning of Section
464 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as the 'IPC') has been done by
the applicant, therefore, offence under
Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is not
made out. It is further submitted that
falsification of documents within
the
meaning of Section 464 of the IPC is the
prerequisite for constituting the offence
under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
In this regard, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on a judgement
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila
Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7
SCC 581 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has
summarized as follows:

25. That keeping in view the strict
interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring
to rule of interpretation wherein natural
inferences are preferred, we observe that a
charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a
person who is not the maker of the same. As
held in plethora of cases, making of a
document is different than causing it to be
made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464
further clarifies that for constituting an
offence under Section 464 it is imperative
that a false document is made and the
accused person is the maker of the same,
otherwise the accused person is not liable
for the offence of forgery.
12 All. Vishwa Bandhu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1293

26. The definition of "false
document" is a part of the definition of
"forgery". Both must be read together.
"Forgery" and "Fraud" are essentially
matters of evidence which could be proved
as a fact by direct evidence or by
inferences drawn from proved facts. In the
case in hand, there is no finding recorded
by the trial Court that the respondents have
made any false document or part of the
document/record to execute mortgage deed
under the guise of that "false document".
Hence, neither respondent no. 1 nor
respondent no. 2 can be held as makers of
the forged documents. It is the imposter
who can be said to have made the false
document by committing forgery. In such
an event the trial court as well as appellate
court misguided themselves by convicting
the accused. Therefore, the High Court has
rightly acquitted the accused based on the
settled legal position and we find no reason
to interfere with the same."

4. It is further contended by the
learned counsel for the applicant that as per
allegation in the FIR in question there is
complete lack of describing the essential
facts constituting the commission of the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC by
the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that
no offence under Section 420 IPC is made
out against the applicant even if the
allegation made in the FIR is taken to be
true on its face value. It is also submitted
that Navyug Shahkari Avas Samiti filed a
suit for cancellation of the sale deed before
the Arbitrator invoking the provisions of
the UP Cooperative Societies Act and
presently the matter is pending before this
Court. In view of the above, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that a
civil dispute is pending between Navyug
Shahkari Avas Samiti and the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Sagar Suri
and another vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2000) 2 SCC 636 has held as under:

"Jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code has been to be exercised with
great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the
High Court is not to examine the matter
superficially. It is to be seen if a matter,
which is essentially of a civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of
other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court
has laid certain principles on the basis of
which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance on a judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Chakraborth
and another vs. State of West Bengal and
another, 2023 SCC Online SC90 wherein
it has been held that where as dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature, is
given a cloak of a criminal offence, then
such dispute can be quashed by exercising
the inherent powers under Section 482 of
CrPC. He has also placed reliance on a
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Paramjeet
Batra
vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High
Court can quash the first information report
in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC. It is further submitted
that this legal position has not been altered
by the introduction of new code of
procedure w.e.f. 1.7.2024.
1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. In view of the above, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the
instant FIR is an abuse of process of law,
therefore, present application deserves to
be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted
that present application is not maintainable
in view of the decision of Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Yadav vs.
State of UP, 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107 wherein
it has been held that in a case at
investigation stage by police, the High
Court cannot interfere in exercise of its
power under Section 482 CrPC but if it
appears
that
investigation
is
being
conducted by police in mala fide exercise
of power, the High Court can quash such
investigation in exercise of its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The arrest of the applicant by police in
cognizable cases cannot be interfered by
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
However, if it appears that police officer is
misusing his powers, the High Court can
issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226
of the Constitution of India restraining such
police officer from such misuse. It is also
held that the power of the police to
investigate into a report which discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence is
unfettered and cannot be interfered with by
the High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC. The
inherent powers of the High Court are there
to prevent the abuse of the process of Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
come into play only after the chargesheet
against an accused is filed in Court and not
till then even in cases where the police
wrongly investigated into a report which
does not disclose the commission of any
offence. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2, in view of the above
pronouncement by Hon'ble Full Bench of
this
Court,
submitted
that
present
application is not maintainable and the
same deserves to be dismissed. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also
submitted that the applicant has played
fraud on this Court and he has also
misguided and misled this Court as the
alleged power of attorney has not been
brought on record by the applicant which
firmly affirms the fact that it is not at all
meant to authorize the said Narendra
Sachdeva to execute any sale deed in
favour of the applicant and the same power
of attorney is not a genuine document and
is fraudulently fabricated document. It is
also submitted by the learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 that the award has
been challenged before this Court by filing
a Writ-C No. 2972 of 2022, which has been
declined by this Court vide order dated
23.5.2022
(Neutral
Citation
No.
2022:AHC-LK):27578).

8.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions and perused the affidavit filed
in support of this application.

9. The opposite party no. 2 has filed
the instant FIR through an application
under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging therein
that he is the registered member of Navyug
Shahkari Avas Samiti (a registered society)
being
Registration
No.
2459
dated
25.11.1971. It is also stated that he is the
coordinator of the said society and he is
authorized to act on behalf of the society. It
is further alleged in the instant FIR that the
above society had executed a sale deed in
favour of one member Hareram Dua being
plot no. 5, area 631-2/9 sq yard on
consideration of money of Rs. 36,600.10
paise dated 11.9.1978. It is further alleged
that as per paragraph 3 of the sale deed it is
mentioned that a member of the society can
12 All. Vishwa Bandhu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1295
transfer it to his family members and if he
transfers in favour of some other person,
then he will have to follow the rules and
by-laws of the society. It is further alleged
that
accused
Narendra
Sachdeva
by
entering into criminal conspiracy with the
co-accused Vishwa Bandhu (applicant
herein) prepared a forged power of attorney
and executed a forged sale deed of plot no.
5 in favour of the applicant Vishwa Bandhu
on 12.9.1988 whereas no power of attorney
was ever executed by the earlier allottee of
the said plot Hareram Dua in favour of
accused
Narendra
Sachdeva
and
the
applicant was neither a member of the
society nor his relative or family member
of said Hareram Dua. It is further alleged
that accused has violated the provisions of
by-laws as provided in Section 55.

10. It is further alleged in the FIR that
when the society came to know about the
execution of the said sale deed dated
12.9.1988, a notice was issued to Hareram
Dua and Vishwa Bandhu (applicant herein)
through registered post on 4.8.2021 and
20.8.2021 but Vishwa Bandhu (applicant
herein) refused to receive the notice and
registered
notice
was
returned
back
whereas Hareram Dua in reply to the notice
submitted that he never executed any
power of attorney in favour of the accused
Narendra Sachdeva and if any power of
attorney has been shown by Narendra
Sachdeva, the same is a forged one and the
alleged sale deed is a forged and fabricated
document and he is still having possession
over the aforesaid plot no. 5. It is further
alleged in the FIR that thereafter the society
instituted mediation case no. 57W of 2021
before
the
UP
Joint
Housing
Commissioner, UP in which Hareram Dua
delegated his power to his son Jatin Dua for
looking after the case and taking steps. The
said Hariram Dua filed an affidavit that he
had never sold the plot no. 5 to anyone and
even he did not require the said plot and he
asked for refund of the money for the said
plot. The society on the request of Hareram
Dua refunded the consideration money with
interest of the said plot to him and the sale
deed dated 11.9.1978 which was executed
by the society in favour of Hareram Dau
was declared null and void.

11. It is further alleged in the FIR that
accused Vishwa Bandhu (applicant herein),
Narendra Sachdeva and Anil Sachdeva
prepared a forged power of attorney
ostensibly being executed by Hariram Dua
and the applicant on the basis of forged
power of attorney lodged an FIR No. 39 of
2022 for the offences under Sections 420,
467, 468 471, 386 and 120B IPC, P.S.
Transport Nagar, District Meerut. It is
further alleged that in view of the above,
the accused Vishwa Bandhu (applicant
herein), Narendra Sachdeva and Anil
Sachdeva
by
committing
fraud
and
preparing
forged
document
with
an
intention to cause loss to the society got
executed a forged sale deed.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has raised a preliminary
objection
regarding
maintainability
of
present application filed under Section 528
BNSS (old section 482 CrPC) and he has
heavily relied on a decision of Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Yadav
(supra) whereas the learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the application
is maintainable in view of the judgements
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra
(supra) and Usha Chakraborth (supra) and
G. Sagar Suri (supra). However, the
question whether an application under
Section 528 BNSS (old section 482 CrPC)
is maintainable for quashing the FIR has
been considered by a Two-Judge Bench of
1296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and
anohter, passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025
wherein in paragraph 8 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:

8. However, from the preamble of
the writ petition filed by the petitioner
before the Bombay High Court, it is evident
that the same sought to invoke the twin
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS
for having the FIR quashed. It is true that
the police report (charge-sheet) had been
filed on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of
investigation of the FIR, but whether or not
cognizance
had
been
taken
by
the
jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear
from the impugned order extracted above.
So long cognisance of the offence is not
taken, a writ or order to quash the
FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under
Article 226; however, once a judicial order
of taking cognisance intervenes, the power
under Article 226 though not available to be
exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS
was available to be exercised to quash not
only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order
taking cognisance, provided same is placed
on record with the requisite pleadings to
assail the same and a strong case for such
quashing is set up. Significantly, it was
reasoned by us in Neeta Singh (supra) that a
judicial order not being amenable to
challenge before a high court under Article
226 of the Constitution and there being no
prayer either under Article 227 thereof or
Section 482, Cr.PC, the Allahabad High
Court was right in holding the writ petition
under Article 226 to have been rendered
infructuous.

13. Thus Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) has
clearly held that for quashing of the FIR,
the High Court can exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and if chargesheet has been submitted
and cognizance has been taken and the
same has been placed along with the FIR
on the record, then the same can be
quashed by invoking Section 528 BNSS
(old section 482 CrPC).

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri
(supra) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the power under Section 482
CrPC should be used with caution only to
prevent the abuse of process of the Court. It
has also been held in the said judgement
that a case under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act was pending against the
appellant and the case related to the FIR
lodged by the G.M. of a Finance Company
roping the appellants and their family
members in order to coerce them to refund
the amount borrowed by them from the
Company, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed
the appeal and quashed the FIR. The
question whether the High Court can
exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC
to quash the FIR when charge-sheet has
already been filed and cognizance has been
taken was not an issue before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above judgement and
therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
not dealt with the said issue in the above
judgement.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance on a judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra
(supra) in which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court quashed the entire proceedings on
the ground that a purely civil dispute was
given the colour of criminal texture and
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
12 All. Vishwa Bandhu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1297

"12.
While
exercising
its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for
the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint
discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court.A complaint disclosing
civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the Court.

13. As we have already noted,
here the dispute is essentially about the
profit of the hotel business and its
ownership. The pending civil suit will take
care of all those issues. The allegation that
forged and fabricated documents are used
by the appellant can also be dealt with in
the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file
similar complaint against the appellant
having failed, he has filed the present
complaint The appellant has been acquitted
in another case filed by Respondent 2
against him alleging offence under Section
406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question
has also been handed over by the appellant
to Respondent 2. In such a situation, in our
opinion, continuation of the pending
criminal proceedings would be abuse of the
process of law. The High Court was wrong
in holding otherwise.

16. The issue whether the FIR can be
quashed by the High Court under Section
482 CrPC after submission of the chargesheet and taking of cognizance was not an
issue in the said judgements and Hon'ble
Supreme Court has not dealt with the same
in the said judgements.

17. The applicant has made following
prayers in the present application:

1. To allow this application and
quash the first information report dated
14.06.2024 registered at P.S. Civil Lines,
Meerut, giving rise to the registration of
Crime No. 192 of 2024, against the
applicant and two others for the offences
under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code;

2. Any/or to pass such other
further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case."

18. From perusal of the prayers so
made in the present application, it is clear
that the applicant has simply sought for
quashing the FIR and he has not placed the
chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken
on the chargesheet by the competent Court.
Thus, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni
(supra), since the chargesheet and the
cognizance has not been placed on record,
FIR cannot be quashed by invoking the
provisions of Section 528 BNSS (old
section 482 CrPC). Thus, in view of the
above,
present
application
is
not
maintainable.

19. Since the application is not
maintainable, therefore, the merit of the
case cannot be gone into by this Court.

20. Accordingly, present application is
dismissed as not maintainable.
---------
1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 12 ILRA 1298
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 10701 of
2017

Sanjay Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether appointment of Shri Yogi Adityanath
and Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya as Chief
Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar
Pradesh on 19.03.2017, while they were
Members of Parliament, was unconstitutional or
illegal.
Whether
Section
3(a)
of
the
Parliament
(Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 is ultra
vires the Constitution.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Articles
63, 64, 69, 70, 101, 102, 102(1)(a), 158,
164,
164(1),
164(1-B),
164(4),
190,
190(3), 191, 191(1)(a), - Parliament
(Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959
-
Section
-
3(a),
-
Prohibition
of
Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950 -
Rule 2, 3 - Public Interest Litigation - filed in
the
nature
of
quo
warranto
challenging
appointment of Shri Yogi Adityanath and Shri
Keshav Prasad Maurya as Chief Minister and
Deputy Chief Minister of U.P. - as well as to
declare their Lok Sabha seats vacant - grounds
taken, dual office, office of profit, violation of
separation of powers, and challenge to validity
of Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of
Disqualification) Act, 1959 - plea taken that,
implied constitutional restrictions, burden on
exchequer - Court finds - (i) appointment valid,
MPs are elected representatives not holders of
constitutional offices or offices of profit, - (ii)
doctrine of separation of powers argument
rejected, Article 164(4) envisages legislative -
executive
overlap,
-
(iii)
dual
salary/constituency neglect plea without factual
basis, respondents resigned from Parliament
after election to Vidhan Parishad, - (iv) Section
3(a) of 1959 Act valid, Constitution itself (Article
102(1)(a) with Explanation) excludes Ministers
from disqualification - Court held, Court held, (i)
MPs are not constitutional office-holders nor do
they hold office of profit, - (ii) Article 164(4)
permits such appointment - (iii) Section 3(a) of
1959 Act valid as Constitution itself excludes
Ministers from disqualification - accordingly,
writ petition found misconceived and dismissed.
(Para - 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
Writ Petition Dismissed.(E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 SCC 1 -
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal
Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1 -
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 -
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
(2019) 11 SCC 683.

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India, - Parliament (Prevention of
Disqualification)
Act,
1959,
-
U.P.
State
Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act,
1971, - U.P. Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and
Miscellaneous
Provisions)
Act,
1981
and
Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members of
Parliament Act, 1954.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Member of
Parliament, Office of Profit, Constitutional Post,
Doctrine
of
Separation
of
Powers,
Disqualification, Article 164(4), Article 102(1)(a),
Section 3(a) of 1959 Act, Governor's discretion,
Constitutional morality - unconstitutional - ultra
vires - validity of appointment - elected -
parliamentary constituency - Minister of State -
simultaneous membership - operation and
application of article - explanation - merit -
decline - dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
PIL arising out from - the Appointment of
opposite party no. 5 & 6 as Chief Minister and
Deputy Chief Minister of UP. Whom were
Member of Parliament.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES