BALBIR SINGH CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sukendu Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. Dated 25.06.2019, which has been registered as Crime No. 0201 of 2019, under Sections 13 (1)(b), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner and that impugned FIR is abuse of the process of law. It has been submitted that petitioner has retired from police service on 28.09.2011 and now, he is a practising Advocate and his wife, who is also an Advocate, was running business of transport and a coaching centre. Besides these sources of income, she has also income from her agricultural land but her income from these sources, was not taken into consideration. Similarly, income of the petitioner from agricultural land, was also not taken into consideration. It was further submitted that earlier an inquiry was conducted by Ram Suresh Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Unit of Bhrastachar Nivaran Sangthan but the charges were not proved and inquiry was closed. It has also been submitted that the amount incurred in purchase of immovable property and vehicles was duly explained but those facts have not taken into consideration by the concerned Enquiry Officer and similarly his income tax returns were also not considered in correct perspective. It was pointed out that an inquiry was also conducted by Kanpur Unit of Bhrastachar Nivaran Sangthan and a report has been submitted by the said Unit on 22.02.2014 and perusal of the said report shows that the allegations of disproportionate assets were not proved against the petitioner. Further, there were discrepancy in amount shown towards expenditure and there was also mathematical error in totalling in expenditure head in the FIR. It was stated that perusal of the FIR and material brought on record shows that no such case is made out against the petitioner that assets of petitioner were not in excess than of his income and thus, the impugned FIR is illegal and mala fide and thus, liable to be quashed.