Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, Allahabad High Court, Deputy CM KP Maurya
Wheels Of Criminal Justice System Can’t Be Clogged By Frivolous Complaints: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Deputy CM KP Maurya’s Degree
|The Allahabad High Court observed that the proceedings appear to be prima facie initiated maliciously by the Revisionist with oblique motives with an intention to gain some advantage or to settle his score.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the Criminal Revision challenging the educational degree of Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Keshav Prasad Maurya.
The Revisionist namely Diwakar Nath Tripathi sought setting aside of the Judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), by which his Application under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was rejected seeking direction for registration of FIR.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked, “The complainant-revisionist is not a person deceived by respondent no. 2, therefore, in view of Section 39 Cr.P.C, he had no locus to move an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register FIR regarding alleged offence of cheating and forgery which are not covered under Section 39 of Cr.P.C. … The wheels of criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints where complainant himself is not aggrieved or victim in any manner.”
The Bench observed that the proceedings appear to be prima facie initiated maliciously by the Revisionist with oblique motives with an intention to gain some advantage or to settle his score.
Senior Advocate Daya Shankar Mishra and Advocate Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi appeared for the Revisionist while Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal, Government Advocate Ashutosh Kumar Sand, and Advocate Pawan Kumar Singh appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
The Revisionist moved an Application before the ACJM alleging that Deputy CM KP Maurya by concealing facts obtained political and lucrative position on the basis of misrepresentation and forged documents. He, while contesting the Assembly Election of 2007 from Allahabad West Constituency, had disclosed that he has passed Prathma in the year 1986, Madhyama in the year 1988 and Uttama in the year 1998 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.
In the year 2012, in the column of highest educational qualification, while contesting the Assembly Election from Sirathu Vidhan Sabha Constituency (Kaushambi), he had disclosed that he passed B.A. in the year 1997 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Allegedly, a false affidavit was filed in the year 2014 Lok Sabha Election, Phoolpur Constituency and Vidhan Parishad Election. It was further alleged that he was allotted a petrol pump from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited based on forged educational documents. For registration of FIR, the Revisionist sent an Application to the authorities, but no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the district administration he filed an Application before the ACJM, which was rejected. Hence, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, said, “Any certificate being forged and any certificate not being recognised as equivalent to High School are two different things and will have different effect. In the present case the main thrust of argument on behalf of revisionist is that educational certificates (Prathma, Madhyma and Uttama Sahitya Ratna) of respondent no. 2 issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not considered as equivalent to High School, Intermediate and Bachelor, therefore submission of said documents by respondent no. 2 before the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation amounts to an offence of forgery is not liable to be accepted and has no legal force.”
The Court enunciated that if there is no forgery in any document or educational certificate and the same has been issued by the office of authority concerned under seal and signature, then said document or educational certificate cannot said to be a forged document.
“If there is no forgery, the document cannot said to be a false document irrespective of the issue whether it is recognised under the law or not and this situation cannot lead to criminal action under the I.P.C. or BNS, 2023. The issue is purely civil in nature and cannot be permitted to give colour of criminal on”, it added.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Revisionist has not preferred any representation against the allotment of retail outlet before the Indian Oil Corporation and he cannot be allowed to drag the Respondent in a criminal prosecution for an action which is essentially civil in nature.
“Even the instant criminal revision has been preferred before this Court without annexing complete documents of this case with vague averment. … Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. The judgments relied upon on behalf of revisionist are distinguishable on facts, hence not helpful to him”, it further said.
The Court was of the view that the Revisionist is pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous and there is no force in the contention urged on behalf of the Revisionist that the Respondent has forged his educational certificate and filed before the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation.
Conclusion
The Court observed, “In view of the above discussion the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist even if they are taken at their face value do not constitute the cognizable offence.”
The Court added that the prayer made by the Revisionist for direction to register an FIR against the Respondent and investigate defy any logic or prudence; hence, allowing the Application under Section 156 (3) CrPC would amount to travesty of justice.
“In view of the above, the allegations of the complainant (revisionist-Diwakar Nath Tripathi), who is admittedly neither victim nor aggrieved with the educational certificates of respondent no. 2 (Keshav Prasad Maurya, who is sitting Deputy Chief Minister of State of U.P.) do not disclose cognizable offence, hence this criminal revision is liable to be rejected”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Criminal Revision and refused to interfere with the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Diwakar Nath Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another (Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2213 of 2025)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Senior Advocate Daya Shankar Mishra, Advocates Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Abhishek Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra, K.K. Roy, and Prabal Pratap.
Respondents: Senior Advocate/AAG Manish Goyal, Government Advocate Ashutosh Kumar Sand, and Advocate Pawan Kumar Singh.