Neeraj Pathak vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

A.F.R.
Reserved on: 11.08.2026
Delivered on: 05.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2567 of 2026
Neeraj Pathak
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1777 of 2026
Raju
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1937 of 2026
Ravi Kant Mishra
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)

2
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2026
Nikhil Mathur
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2026
Akhilesh Kumar Dubey
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2026
Ram Sewak Singh
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6025 of 2026
Upendra Kumar Dixit
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)

3
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6396 of 2026
Dudhnath Prasad
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2026
Raghuveer Singh
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2934 of 2026
Vinod Singh
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3019 of 2026
Rahul
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)

4
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2026
Yogesh Singh Chauhan
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2026
Satish Kumar
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1752 of 2026
Rajesh Singh
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1756 of 2026
Srinivas Singh
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)

5
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2026
Rajkumar Sharma
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2026
Arvind Kumar
….. Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :
Ajay Singh, Ashish Agrawal, Hitesh
Kumar Mishra, Hitesh Pachori,
Jadu Nandan Yadav, Kapil Dev
Singh Rathore, Mayank Chandra,
Naveen Kumar Srivastava, Prakhar
Saran Srivastava, Pranvesh, Raj
Kumar Mishra, Sameer Srivastava,
Sanjai Singh, Shivanshu Mehta, Sr.
Advocate, Surya Pratap Singh,
Uttam Singh, Vijay Tripathi, Vikram
Dev Singh Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi, G.A.

6
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
(Per : Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)
1. Since all the afore-captioned writ petitions arise out of same
Case Crime Number and involve common question of fact and law, the
same have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the purpose of the present judgment, the brief facts, as
noticed hereinbelow, are those of Writ Petition No. 2567 of 2026.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The controversy arises from the functioning of the Electricity
Distribution Division, Fatehabad, Agra, under Dakshinanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited. The allegations relate to tendering and execution
of electrical works during the financial years 2023–24, 2024–25 and
2025–26.
3. On the basis of allegations concerning irregularities in tender-related
work, a three-member enquiry committee was constituted vide Office
Memorandum No. 9789/CE/Agra Zone/Agra/Camp dated 12.11.2025.
The committee comprised Raj Kumar, Chief Engineer (Commercial), as
Chairman; Rahul Aakad, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, as Member;
and Anju, Accounts Officer, as Member. The committee examined
tender records pertaining to the aforesaid financial years and
submitted its report on 31.12.2025.

7
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
4. The enquiry report, as reproduced in the FIR, recorded several
alleged irregularities. The e-tender portal was stated to disclose
identical IP addresses of participants in 50 tenders during the financial
years 2023–24, 2024–25 and 2025–26, giving rise to an allegation of
collusion between bidders. The report further alleged that, in 28
tenders during 2023–24 and 2024–25, the requisite tender fees and
earnest money deposits had not been deposited, although receipts
purporting to evidence payment had, in certain instances, been
attached. It was also alleged that the second part of the tender
process had been opened after bidders were treated as qualified on
the basis of the first part, notwithstanding the alleged deficiencies. In
relation to 12 tenders during the relevant financial years, contracts
were allegedly executed without approval of the competent committee.
Examination of 29 tenders was stated to have disclosed irregularities
involving disregard of the rates quoted by the lowest bidder, execution
of multiple contracts where only one was considered necessary, and
issuance of contracts or purchase orders reflecting incorrect monetary
values. The enquiry report quantified the alleged financial loss in this
category at Rs. 1,10,33,845.40.
5. The report also referred to eight tenders in which the first or second
part had allegedly not been opened, four cancelled tenders in respect
of which contracts were allegedly executed without following the
prescribed procedure, and 40 contracts for which the related tender
publications were not displayed on the e-tender portal and records of

8
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
publication were allegedly unavailable in the divisional office. The
report referred, inter alia, to Tenders Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 17 of 2024–
25, connected with Office Memorandum Nos. 1720, 1721 and
1722/Vivim-II/Fatehabad dated 14.11.2024 and Office Memorandum
No. 1748/Vivim-II/Fatehabad dated 19.11.2024. The enquiry report
also recorded alleged irregularities in contracts executed without
publication of tenders or compliance with departmental procedures.
The FIR referred to an aggregate alleged financial loss of
approximately Rs. 30,44,24,074.
6. It is further alleged that a fire broke out in the office chamber of
Neeraj Pathak during the intervening night of 06.05.2025 and
07.05.2025, resulting in the burning of tender-related files and other
documents. Neeraj Pathak is stated to have submitted information
regarding the incident at Police Station Fatehabad on 14.05.2025. The
informant alleges that the destruction of the records was deliberate
and connected with the irregularities subsequently identified. The
petitioners dispute the allegation of deliberate destruction and rely
upon the availability of electronic tender data and other records in the
concerned departmental offices.
7. On the basis of the enquiry report, Somveer Singh, Superintending
Engineer (Distribution), Electricity Distribution Division, Fatehabad,
submitted the complaint seeking registration of a criminal case against
Neeraj Pathak, other departmental officers and employees, and the
contractors allegedly involved. The complaint alleged fraud, forgery,

9
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
manipulation of tender documents, collusion with bidders, destruction
of official records and abuse of official position. It also recorded that
prior approval had been obtained from the competent authority under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in
2018.
8. Accordingly, Case Crime No. 0014 of 2026 was registered on
10.01.2026 under the provisions mentioned above. The petitioners
have approached this Court challenging the FIR and seeking relief
against the criminal proceedings.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners, who were holding the Clerical
posts
9. Denial of allegations:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the allegations as leveled in the impugned first information report
are categorically denied as false, baseless and without any foundation
and no offence as alleged, is made out against petitioners. Even, if the
allegations are taken on their face value.
10. Unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R:- Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are unexplained and
inordinate delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R. The alleged period of
offence is 01.04.2023 to 01.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. has been
lodged on 10.01.2026 i.e. after more than 70 days from the last date
of alleged occurrence, without any plausible explanation for such delay.

10
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
The said delay is fatal to prosecution case and shows afterthought and
malicious.
11. No power, authority or capacity to commit the alleged offence:-
Learned counsel for the some set of petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are working on the post of Camp
Assistant/Stenographer/Draftsman/Clerks, which is low ranking
ministerial posts. The petitioners have never been entrusted with any
financial, administrative or technical power. The entire process of
tender i.e. including drafting of estimate, technical evaluation, financial
sanction and allotment is undertaken by the Competent Tender
Awarding Committee constituted by the department and headed by the
Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer. It is submitted that therefore,
the petitioners who were holding the posts of Camp
Assistant/Stenographer/Draftsman/Clerks neither had the power nor
the capacity to initiate or approve such large scale financial
transactions. A decision regarding distribution of 12 high value tenders
cannot, by any stretch of imagination be taken by an employee holding
the post as stated above. Therefore, no criminal liability can be fasten
upon the petitioners, who were holding the post of Camp
Assistant/Stenographer/Draftsman/Clerks.
12. Petitioners are neither beneficiary nor responsible for any wrongful
gain:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners
are not the beneficiary of the alleged fraud/misappropriation. There is
no allegation of any wrongful gain accrued to the petitioners or any

11
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
wrongful loss caused by them, which is sine qua non for constituting
offence under Sections 316 and 318 B.N.S.S. In absence thereof, the
statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied.
13. F.I.R. based solitary on administrative enquiry report is not
sustainable:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of a
report submitted by three members enquiry committee constituted by
the Chief Engineer. It is settled law that an administrative enquiry
report is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot form the sole
basis for initiation of criminal prosecution without independent
investigation and without affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The impugned F.I.R. is based on a report violating principles
of natural justice is abuse of process of law.
14. Petitioners have no concern with Accounts Department and tender
process:- It is vehemently submitted that the petitioners have no role,
responsibility or involvement with the process of distribution,
evaluation or allotment of tenders. The tenders pertaining to financial
year 2023-24, 2024-25 were awarded by duly constitutional
departmental committee with which the petitioners had no concern
whatsoever and the petitioners were neither the member of the said
committee nor had any role in the award of said tender.
15. Attempt to link the petitioner with the fire incident is malicious:-
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the attempt to link

12
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
some of the petitioners with the fire incident is mis-conceived and
malicious. Inquiry report pertaining to the said fire incident itself
access responsibility upon the Security Guard on duty and does not
record any role, presence or involvement of the petitioners in the said
incident.
16. Act done in due discharge of official duty in binding directions:- It
is submitted that the petitioners function under the direct
administrative control of the Superintending Engineer and discharges
their duties strictly in accordance with the instructions and directions
issued by the said competent authority. Whatever, work done by the
petitioners, were in due discharge of official duties and in binding
directions of the competent authority which does not attract any
illegality, misconduct or criminal culpability. The petitioners had an
unblemished service career and they discharged their work with
utmost sincerity and integrity.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners, who were the Superintending
Engineer/Chief Engineer
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.1937 of 2026 (Ravi Kant Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others),
submitted that the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and
fabricated. It is submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is basis of some ex
parte preliminary inquiry report of three members committee dated
31.12.2025 of which details has not been provided to the petitioner at

13
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
any point of time, even the petitioner was not given any opportunity of
hearing before the said committee, no opportunity of examination or to
file evidence or opportunity to cross-examine was ever accorded to the
petitioner by the said committee nor was its report ever furnished to
the petitioner at any point of time, therefore, it is clear cut violation of
principle of natural justice.
18. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. a tender bearing number
100/2023-24 was also mentioned (at Serial No.82). Various
irregularities in said tender was found by the Committee in its report
dated 31.12.2025. However, it is hereby stated that agreement under
the said Tender No.100/2023-24 was executed by Shri Rajkumar, who
also was appointed as Chairman, Inquiry Committee and as such he
acted as a ‘Judge in his own cause’. Further, he has though reported
irregularities in the said tender but has not named himself as person
responsible and guilty.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
F.I.R. is founded solely on the ground of departmental inquiry report,
which is vitiated by patent conflict of interest. This amounts to self-
adjudication, offending the principle of Nemo Judex In Causa Sua,
rendering the enquiry non est in law. It is further submitted that such
enquiry was arbitrary and selective, attracting the doctrine of malice in
law.

14
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently
submitted that the petitioner was only posted for a short period of 4.5
months i.e. from 04.01.2025 to 23.05.2025 and thereafter he has been
transferred and now he is posted as Superintending Engineer (Stores)
at Agra.
21. It is further submitted that the allegations with regard to the
financial loss amounting to Rs.30,44,24,074/- is not related to the
petitioner. The same is in respect of various other contracts/tenders of
which reference has been made in the impugned first information
report. Only one contract/tender i.e. Tender No.22/2024-25 during the
entire tenure of the petitioner has been mentioned which appears at
Serial Number 111 (internal page 34 of the F.I.R.).
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that in view of the above-said fact as stated in the instant F.I.R. is
nothing but gross misuse of process of law and the criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner is only mala fide intention and therefore,
it is malicious prosecution. The instant F.I.R. may quash while allowing
the instant writ petition.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners, who were the Contractors
23. Learned counsel for the some set of petitioners submitted that the
impugned F.I.R. discloses no criminal offence. It is submitted that the
allegations, even if taken its face value, facts disclose departmental
irregularity, not criminal conspiracy, cheating or criminal breach of

15
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
trust. Award of tender is multi-stage process involving scrutiny at
various level i.e. Junior Engineer then Executive Engineer then
Superintending Engineer then Tender Opening Committee then Chief
Engineer thereafter finance wings and finally E.R.P. - General Purchase
Order. Therefore, a Contractor cannot illegally manipulate the same.
24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the allegation of award of work, without publication of tender is
unsustainable. The said work-fall under ‘emergent-works’ exception
recognized under the departmental manual, were executed within the
sanctioned time estimate and have been duly certified as complete and
satisfactory by the competent Engineers, the same cannot be termed
illegal. It is submitted that the alleged discrepancy of Rs.1970/- in
Tender No.95/2023-24 and Rs.14,000/- in Tender No.27/2023-24
between L-1 amount and agreement, amount is too trivial to attribute
criminality. At the highest, it is a typographical/clerical error in feeding
data in E.R.P., without any wrongful gain to the petitioner or wrongful
loss to the Corporation. Criminal prosecution cannot be founded on
such minor variance.
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that because the allegation of not opening of financial bid is against
the internal process of the department, hence the Contractor cannot
be held liable for the same. Petitioner has no role or knowledge of
internal tender opening. In any case, the order was followed by system

16
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
generated E.R.P. purchase order confirming L-1 status and 80%
payment has been released after due measurement and certification.
26. It is also submitted that the submission of bids from a common I.P.
address by itself, does not constitute criminality. In rural/remote areas,
Contractors commonly used a shared Cybercafe. Mere probability of
common I.P. Address without any material of meeting of minds or
cartelization does not disclose conspiracy under Section 61(2) of B.N.S.
27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the entire F.I.R. is founded on an enquiry report vitiated by bias
and conflict of interest. The Chairman of the Inquiry Committee is itself
the authority, who approved an issue the very LOIs and agreements
now impugned to other members i.e. Superintending Engineer,
Rajkumar and Rahul Akad, were themselves signatories/approving
authorities on some of the very tenders they have indicated. Thus, the
report is Nemo Judex In Causa Sua was liable to be discarded.
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the principle of natural justice has also been violated as the
inquiry report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner without
any notice or opportunity of hearing, now it visits them with serious,
civil and criminal consequences. It is submitted that in view of above-
said facts and circumstances, the instant F.I.R. deserves to be quashed
while allowing the writ petitions.

17
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
Arguments on behalf of State Counsel
29. Per contra, Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the
plain reading of F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offences. It is
further submitted that whatever the arguments advanced by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties are their defence,
therefore, it cannot be seen or adjudicated at this stage. The instant
F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the detailed inquiry report. It is also
submitted that the F.I.R. and inquiry report identifies the petitioners by
name and by their capacity and attribute to them specific acts, by
tender number, date and amount. Whether, they acted dishonestly or
derived wrongful gain/benefits are questions of facts for investigation
and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The acts alleged i.e.
institution of agreements against cancelled tenders, institution of
agreements before publication and generation of purchase orders in
favour of non-participants lies outside the discharge of any official
function. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently submitted that
therefore, the writ petitions seeking the quashing of F.I.R. are devoid
by merit and it is to be rejected.
30. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

18
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
Analysis and Conclusion
31. The genesis of the present prosecution is Case Crime
No.0014 of 2026, registered on 10.01.2026. The allegations, in
brief, as per the detailed three members inquiry report dated
31.12.2025 constituted by the Chief Engineer, are that during the
period 01.04.2025 to 01.11.2025, many high value tenders were
manipulated causing wrongful loss to the corporation to the tune
of Rs.30,44,24,074/-. The modus operandi alleged is (i) Institution
of agreements against cancelled tenders; (ii) Institution of
agreements before publication of NIT; (iii) Generation of ERP -
general purchase orders in favour of non-participants/L-2 bidders
without opening of financial bids; (iv) Award of works without
publication of tender.
32. This Court now proceeds to deal with the arguments raised by
seriatim.
A. On Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
33. The contention that prior approval under Section 17-A was not
obtained is misconceived. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that
prior approval was obtained from the competent authority before
registration of F.I.R., which is duly mentioned. Moreover, acts
alleged entering into agreements against cancelled tenders, ante-
dating agreements, generating purchase orders in favour of non-
bidders/L-2 prima facie do not fall within the ambit of independent

19
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
‘recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in
discharge of his official functions or duties’, but rather indicate
alleged acts of manipulation and procedural irregularities.
Moreover, this provision does not confer blanket immunity upon
public servants or extend protection to private contractors against
allegations of independent criminal acts. Therefore, protection of
Section 17-A cannot be claimed at this thresh-hold. The issue is
left open to be examined during investigation.
B. On delay in lodging the F.I.R.
34. The alleged period is up to 01.11.2025 and F.I.R. is dated
10.01.2026 i.e. within 70 days. The delay is explained by the fact
that a detailed departmental inquiry was conducted and report
was submitted on 31.12.2025. In cases of economic offences and
tender frauds, some time is required to collate material. Delay of
70 days cannot be termed as is inordinate or fatal so as to quash
the F.I.R. It is the matter to be appreciated during trial.
C. On Argument that petitioners holding clerical posts have no
power
35. This Court cannot accept the plea that Camp
Assistants/Stenographers/Draftsmen and Clerks had no role, the
enquiry report specifically attributes roles by name, capacity,
tender number, date and amount. It is alleged that ERP IDs of
these petitioners were used for feeding data, generating G.P.Os.
and uploading agreements. Whether they acted under binding

20
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
directions of Superintending Engineer or on their own, whether
their IDs were misused, are all disputed questions of fact which
requires investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a
mini trial and hold that they have no capacity.
D. On no wrongful gain and ingredients of Sections 316 & 318
B.N.S., not made out
36. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no
wrongful gain to the petitioners. Section 316 (criminal breach of
trust) and Section 318 (cheating) of B.N.S. along with Section
61(2) (criminal conspiracy) and Prevention of Corruption Act,
offences are made out, if there is dishonest intention and wrongful
loss to any cooperation or institution. The F.I.R. alleges wrongful
loss of more than Rs.30,00,00,000/- (Thirty Crores) to the
corporation. The beneficiary may be the Contractor, but the
conspiracy and abatement by officials is also punishable. The
wrongful gain needs not be direct to the public servant himself,
this requires evidence.
E. On F.I.R. based solely on Inquiry Report and Violation of
Natural Justice
37. It is settled law that an administrative enquiry is not
substantive evidence, but it can certainly form the basis for
lodging an F.I.R. and settle the criminal law into motion. The F.I.R.
is not the enquiry report itself, it is based on materials collected
during enquiry. The principle of natural justice audi alteram partem

21
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
applies to departmental proceedings resulting in civil
consequences, but does not applies at the stage of preliminary
enquiry which proceeds for registration of F.I.R. The petitioners
will get full opportunity during investigation and trial to rebut the
same.
F. On arguments of Contractors that works falls under exceptions,
minor variance in amounts, use of Common IP Address and non-
opening of financial bid being internal process.
38. Whether work falls under “emergent-works” exception under
departmental manual and whether it was within sanctioned
estimate and satisfactorily completed, is a matter of verification of
records.
(b) The plea that discrepancy of certain amounts in various tender
is typographical/clerical error and trivial to attribute criminal liability
cannot be accepted at this stage. The cumulative effect has
resulted in huge loss.
(c) The plea that not opening of financial bid is internal process of
department and Contractor has no role, is not tenable, when
allegation is of collusion. The generation of ERP purchase under
confirming L-1 status despite no financial bid being opened, if
proved, shows a deep rooted conspiracy.
(d) The common IP Address argument – submission of bids from
a common IP Address in rural areas using shared Cyber Cafe

22
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
may be plausible defence, but when coupled with other
allegations like L-1 being non-participants, award without tender, it
becomes a relevant circumstance to infirmitting of minds under
Section 61(2) B.N.S. It cannot be brushed aside as mere
probability. Mere use of same Cyber Cafe by different Contractors
for completing bids itself is highly unnatural and requires
investigation.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua,
G. On Bias
39. The argument that Chairman of Inquiry Committee himself
and had approved some LOIs and agreements and therefore,
report is vitiated by bias, is a defence that can be taken during
trial to discredit the report. The enquiry report is not a judicial
order. At this stage, the Court has to see whether cognizable
offence is disclosed on plain reading of F.I.R. or not. Whether
enquiry was vitiated by bias or not, is the matter of investigation to
be done by independent investigating officer.
40. The law with regard to quashing of F.I.R. is well settled by
1
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , and recently in
Ms. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra &
2
others . The power under Article 226 is to be exercised sparingly
and only where on plain reading of F.I.R., no cognizable offence is
made out. The Court cannot go into the veracity of allegations or
evaluate defence of accused at this stage.
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2 AIR 2021 SC 1918

23
CRLP No. - 2567 of 2026
41. In the present case, a plain reading of F.I.R. discloses
cognizable offences. The allegations are serious involving
manipulation of ERP system, creation of agreements against
cancelled tenders, award of tenders without publication,
generation of purchase orders in favour of non-participants.
Whatever arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioners, are their defence, which cannot be adjudicated by
this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The same are questions of fact for
investigation.
42. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ
petitions seeking quashing of F.I.R.
43. Accordingly, all the connected writ petitions are dismissed.
44. Before parting with judgment, I would like to express my
appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Nikhat Fatima for her
thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
November 5, 2026
Atul
Digitally signed by :-
ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad