{"id":203584,"date":"2021-09-01T16:08:53","date_gmt":"2021-09-01T10:38:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=203584"},"modified":"2021-09-01T17:34:43","modified_gmt":"2021-09-01T12:04:43","slug":"allahabad-high-court-refuses-to-quash-fir-against-former-bsp-minister-in-rs-1400-crore-memorial-scam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/top-news-of-the-day\/news\/allahabad-high-court-refuses-to-quash-fir-against-former-bsp-minister-in-rs-1400-crore-memorial-scam\/","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad High Court refuses to quash FIR against former BSP minister in Rs 1400-crore memorial scam"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Allahabad High Court<\/a> refused to quash an FIR lodged against Babu Singh Kushwaha, who was a cabinet minister in the BSP government, in the memorial scam of Rs 1400 crore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Lucknow Division Bench of Justices Saroj Yadav and Ramesh Sinha passed this order on August 27, while hearing a writ petition filed by Kushwaha, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR registered under Sections 409, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that for the past seven years, the investigating agency could not find any evidence against the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made in the FIR with regard to construction of monuments was controlled by the Ministry of Public Works Department and the petitioner has no concern with the said work as allocation of said Ministry had never been given to the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further submitted that the petitioner was not the beneficiary as no financial transaction was ever made at the end of the petitioner or any of his officials posted in his Ministry. The petitioner also had no direct or indirect connection with the Public Works Department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Khushwaha said co-accused Panna Lal Yadav had earlier challenged the\u00a0FIR\u00a0before the Court by way of a Writ Petition, in which the interim order had been granted in his favour on July 31, 2020, hence the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further argued that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner just for harassment with oblique motive. The entire allegations levelled against him were absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also Read:<\/strong> Allahabad High Court directs UP govt to prepare SOPs on management, security of hospitals in state within a week<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR and also staying the arrest of the petitioner and argued that from the perusal of the FIR, prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognisable offence is made out, hence, no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far as the claim of the petitioner for giving the benefit of interim orders as has been granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court on March 6, 2020 and July 31, 2020 passed in writ petition, respectively, it has been argued by the AGA that the writ petition is being argued finally by the parties, therefore, the interim orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court cannot be granted to the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before proceeding further on merit of the case, we deem it appropriate to first adjudicate the submission of the counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the interim orders dated March 6, 2020 and July 31, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It transpires from the interim order dated March 06, 2020 that the same is not a speaking order, whereas interim order dated July 31, 2020 has been passed by giving parity of the interim order dated March 06, 2020 and that too also not a speaking order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held, “It is settled law that the interim orders\/directions are issued on the basis of prima facie finding and makes temporary arrangements to preserve status quo to ensure that the matter does not either become infructuous or a fait accompli before final hearing and this view has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The legal position on the issue of quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC,” it added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n