High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amit Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30465 of 2007  RD-AH 11674 (11 July 2007)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30465 of 2007
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner applied for being selected and appointed as constable. He is said to have been selected and for the purposes of character verification and antecedents, petitioner was required to submit an affidavit. In the affidavit, which was so submitted by petitioner on 11.11.2006, a categorical statement of fact was mentioned in paragraph 5 thereof that at no point of time, he had been arrayed as accused in any criminal case, nor had any charge sheet been issued against him in any criminal case. Thereafter, petitioner has been undergoing training, and during the course of verification of the contents of affidavit, it was revealed that against petitioner an F.I.R. giving rise to case crime No. C-4 of 2006 under Section 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. had been lodged on 10.11.2006 at Police Station Saifai, District Etawah, in which final report has been filed on 31.03.2007. Taking into account this criminal case, the statement of fact mentioned in the affidavit stood falsified, and as such candidature of petitioner has been sought to be cancelled on 15.06.2007. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case sequence of events establish that as far as petitioner is concerned, he had no knowledge, notice or information of the criminal case giving rise to case crime No. C-4 of 2006 under Section 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C., inasmuch as, the affidavit had been furnished by petitioner on 11.11.2006, and the F.I.R. is alleged to have been lodged on 10.11.2006, in which final report has been submitted on 31.03.2007, as such it cannot be inferred that petitioner had disclosed wrong statement of fact in his affidavit dated 11.11.2006, and the candidature of petitioner could not have been cancelled on that basis.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that as per terms of the affidavit, action has been taken against petitioner, and no interference is warranted.
After respective arguments have been advanced, as far as fact of the present case is concerned, as to whether petitioner had any knowledge, notice or information of criminal case giving rise to case crime No. C-4 of 2006 under Section 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. Lodged on 10.11.2006, is essentially a question of fact, which requires investigation by Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri as to whether petitioner had any knowledge, notice or information of criminal case giving rise to case crime No. C-4 of 2006 under Section 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. Lodged on 10.11.2006. In these circumstances and in this background, Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is directed to investigate the matter and submit a report on the question posed above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The earlier order dated 15.06.2007 passed by Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri shall abide by fresh order to be passed by Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, hereafter.
In terms of above observation and direction, present writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.