Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SAURABH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that no case for interference with the impugned FIR is made out.

Summary

The petitioners, Saurabh Kumar and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quash of an FIR alleging that they defrauded an informant of Rs. 22 lakh by promising a police Sub‑Inspector post in Madhya Pradesh and providing a forged selection list. The petitioners contended that the transaction was a commercial agreement and the FIR allegations were false. The Court examined whether it could interfere with the FIR on the basis of the petitioner's claim of innocence. It held that the seriousness of the allegations involving alleged corruption and abuse of governmental authority precluded judicial interference with the FIR at this stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioners to pursue other remedies for their liberty.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to quash an FIR alleging fraud in securing government employment
  • Whether the allegations in the FIR are false and constitute a commercial transaction between the parties

Subjects

  • quash petition
  • FIR
  • Article 226
  • criminal procedure
  • government employment fraud
  • court jurisdiction

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10403 of 2026

Saurabh Kumar and another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :   G.A.

Court No. - 47

                     HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
                     HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

1.   Heard Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government
Advocate on behalf of the State.


2.    The allegations in the First Information Report ('FIR' for short) are
that a sum of Rs. 22 lacs were taken by the petitioners from the informant
on the pretext of securing Government employment, that is to say, in the
Police as a Sub-Inspector. The promise was for employment as a Sub-
Inspector in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Later, after the money was paid
and the informant desired information, a forged select list of Sub-
Inspectors was made available to him, signed by the Director General of
Police, Madhya Pradesh, one V.K. Singh. When the informant went to the
petitioners, he found them wearing a police uniform. They further
demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and assured him that he could join his
service at Bhopal after 15.10.2019. On 16.10.2019, the informant went to
the Police Headquarters, Bhopal along with the select list. It is there that
he was told that the select list was forged.


3.   Learned Counsel for the petitioners has come up with a case that
there was a commercial transaction between parties, and the allegations in
the FIR are false. What the petitioners urge is a defence, the truth of
                                                                                                   CRLP No. 10403 of 2026
                                                                       2


                                    which we cannot ascertain in the present proceedings under Article 226 of
                                    the Constitution. So far as the allegations go, these are very serious and
                                    relate to employment under the Government, and the ill deed of private
                                    citizens in accepting money for the purpose of ensuring Government
                                    employment strikes at the root of the Government's authority and also
                                    makes the society a very unstable place.


                                    4.       We are, therefore, of opinion that no case for interference with the
                                    impugned FIR is made out.


                                    5.       However, it will be open to the petitioners to seek such other
                                    remedies for the purpose of securing their liberty, as advised.


                                    6.      In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.


                                    7.      The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
                                    the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri and the Station House Officer,
                                    Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, both through the learned
                                    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.



                                                                                (Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    I. Batabyal/S.K. Srivastava




Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.