The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has dismissed the applications challenging the SIT report and FIR in the case of fake madrassas in Azamgarh.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Jawed Aslam and others.
The Application under section 482 is filed with a prayer to quash the report dated 30.11.2022 submitted by the Special Investigation Team as well as all consequential proceedings.
In all these applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C, there is a common prayer for quashing of the report of Special Investigation Team dated 30.11.2022, minutes of meeting dated 19.12.2022, Government Order dated 9.1.2023 for taking action in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Committee, and an F.I.R under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 204, 166, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station S.I.T, District Lucknow Rural.
The Additional Advocate General, V.K Shahi raised preliminary objection on the point of maintainability of the cases and submitted that fact finding report as well as the decision of State Government for lodging of F.I.R and the First Information Report in question cannot be challenged before the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and he also relied on the decision of larger bench of the Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P & Ors reported in 1988 SCC Online All 603.
Counsel for the applicant opposed the objection of the Additional Advocate General and submitted that issue in the case of Ramlal Yadav (supra) was decided, on the other aspect, on the point that whether High Court can interfere in the investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C and police officer can be restrained from arresting of the accused, he submitted that the controversy is already decided in the catena of judgments that F.I.R as well as complaint can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C if the same does not discloses any offence.
He also submitted that once provision of Criminal Procedure Code comes into play then every action of the agency or court can be examined by the Court under Section 482 CrPC. He also drew the attention of the Court on the provisions of Section 482 CrPC.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C was omitted in the State of U.P and protection of pre-arrest was not available to the accused persons with effect from 28.11.1976 in accordance with provision of U.P Act, therefore, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C was being filed before this Court after the deletion of provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C with a prayer for restraining the police from the arrest during the course of investigation.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that Section 482 Cr.P.C clearly provides that nothing shall be deemed to limited or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice and in case, the F.I.R or complaint does not discloses any of the offence, then same can be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
Considering the judgments relied by the parties as well as provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is undisputed fact that provisions of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C was omitted in the State of U.P with effect from 28.11.1976 and thereafter, there was no provision of protection of pre-arrest after lodging of F.I.R, as a result, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C was being filed with the prayer to restrain the police from the arrest during the course of investigation and the controversy came before the bench of seven judges, in which, it was held that during the course of investigation, no interference with the arrest of the accused is to be done but it was clarified that High Court can always issue writ of mandamus under the Constitution of India restraining the police officials to misusing its legal powers, the Court noted.
Counsel for the applicant said that on the basis of incorrect facts, enquiry was ordered by the State Government and without conducting a thorough enquiry, the report was prepared by the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T) dated 30.11.2022 and the alleged report was discussed in the so called meeting of Additional Chief Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf Department, Government of U.P, Principal Secretary, Department of Home as well as Director General of Police on 19.12.2022 and accepted the recommendations of SIT.
He further said that without giving any adequate opportunity to the applicant, the State Government accepted the recommendations of the Committee for lodging of the F.I.R and the F.I.R in question was lodged.
He also said that committee failed to consider the provisions of Madarsa Education Board Act, 2004 and also submitted that applicants acted in good faith and shall entitle to get the benefit under Section 27 of Act of 2004, therefore, the impugned enquiry report as well as Government Order and the F.I.R are liable to be quashed.
The Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that enquiry report cannot be challenged before the Court as this is a report only with the intention to verify the allegations before lodging of the FIR.
He further submitted that during the course of verification, it was found that 313 Madarsa in the District Azamgarh were running against prescribed standards and 39 Madarsa were not having existence on the ground.
He also submitted that documents of Madarsa related to recognition, etc were also not traceable as the fund which was received for the modernization of Madrasa was embezzled and it is a matter of investigation.
He said that as the F.I.R discloses the commission of offence, in such circumstances, F.I.R cannot be quashed and submitted that it is also expected from the applicants to cooperate in the investigation.
“Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, contents of the application, other relevant documents, alleged enquiry report as well as Government Order and the minutes of the meeting dated 19.12.2022, in which, the recommendation of meeting was accepted for lodging of F.I.R, thereafter, F.I.R in question was lodged on after going through the contents of F.I.R it cannot be said that F.I.R does not discloses the commission of offences, as there is allegation that 39 Madarsa are not in existence and fund for modernization was released by the officials and their records are also not available, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out, in such circumstances, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has no force and is liable to be dismissed”, the Court observed while dismissing the application.