Court affirms lower court decisions, citing lack of evidence and agreement against public policy.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a complaint involving allegations of monetary exchange for securing employment, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence and the agreement's contravention of public policy. The case, Priyank Kumar v. State of U.P., revolved around accusations that the complainant, Priyank Kumar, paid money to secure employment for his brother, which the court found to be unsupported by credible evidence.
The petitioner, Priyank Kumar, alleged that he was defrauded by the respondents, who claimed to have connections within the medical department to facilitate employment opportunities. According to the complaint, an agreement was made to pay a total of Rs. 12 lakh, with an initial transfer of Rs. 50,000 to the account of one of the accused, Dr. Bhuvnesh Kumar. The complainant further alleged that Rs. 4 lakh was paid in cash, but no employment materialized, nor was the money returned.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Meerut, after considering the complaint, dismissed it under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing insufficient evidence to support the allegations. A subsequent revision petition filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The High Court, while hearing the present petition, upheld these decisions, reiterating that the alleged agreement was against public policy and lacked evidentiary support.
Justice Samit Gopal, presiding over the case, noted that the complaint's allegations were serious but unsubstantiated. The court emphasized that agreements facilitating employment through monetary transactions contravene public policy principles and, in the absence of concrete evidence, do not warrant judicial interference.
In addition to addressing the main issue, the court also issued directives concerning judicial practices and documentation standards. It instructed the Registrar (Criminal) to ensure that only neat and clean copies of documents are submitted to courts, following a lapse in oversight by a Review Officer. Furthermore, the court advised against the unnecessary mention of judges' names in judicial citations, directing presiding officers to adhere strictly to citation norms.
The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal standards and public policy, reiterating that allegations must be substantiated with concrete evidence to merit judicial intervention. The petition was dismissed, with the court finding no irregularities in the earlier orders.
Bottom Line:
Allegations of payment of money for securing employment - Agreement against public policy - Orders dismissing complaint and revision upheld as speaking orders addressing merits of the matter.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 156(3), 203, Constitution of India Article 227
Priyank Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2850051
