AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • section 201, 409, 420 IPC
  • Section 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC,
  • sections 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • section 201, 409, 420 IPC
  • Section 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC,
  • sections 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC,
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Smt. Rashmi Prabha Shastri v. State of U.P. and Another

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43311 of 2025 Court No. - 75

    HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

    1.Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

    2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 27.12.2022, summoning order dated 1.4.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 6577 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 47 of 2016 under sections 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC, PS- Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

    3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that respondent no. 2 concerned Inspector Vigilance Department lodged a NCR on dated 15.3.2016 for incident pertaining to year 1998 against the applicant who was holding the charge of District Minority Welfare Officer at that time. The allegation which is available at page 18 to 20 of instant application is only in respect of non- providing the document related to the extension of scholarship to the eligible candidates when the inquiry has been initiated by Vigilance Department, Government of U.P. Applicant has already been retired wayback on dated 31.7.2013 and charge sheet has been preferred by way of implicating the applicant in the year 2015. Applicant has been implicated in pursuance to Section 204 IPC at the time of lodging NCR but later on while Versus

    Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Dixit

    Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

    Smt. Rashmi Prabha Shastri

    .....Applicant(s)

    State of U.P. and Another

    .....Opposite

    Party(s)

    1

    preferring the charge sheet sections 201, 409 and 420 IPC have been added whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up. Implication of the applicant in respect of Section 204 IPC has to be examined on the basis of offence which may attract Section 204 IPC. The specific offence under Section 204 IPC as defined in the Indian Penal Code is reproduced hereinbelow:

    "Section 204 IPC- Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence -Whoever secrets or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

    4. By bare perusal of the Section 204 IPC, it is crystal clear that whoever secrets or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid.

    5. The facts which has not been disputed by learned AGA is that applicant was only holding charge of District Welfare Officer from 21.2.2000 to 31.3.2001 with additional charge of District Minority Welfare Officer and extended her services on the same charge from February 1999 to July 2002 and again from 2005 to 2008 and the documents were warranted in the NA528 No. 43311 of 2025

    2

    year 2016 when the applicant was not holding any post being retired employee of the Department and as such production of the documents which were required by the applicant after her retirement does not attract implication of the applicant under Section 204 of IPC.

    6. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that there is hardly any case of embezzlement of the amount rather the case framed against the applicant is for not producing the documents related to the extension of scholarship for minority students and not a single application is available before the Inquiry Officer for allegating any specific charge of non-extension of the scholarship to the eligible candidates. From perusal of entire material available on record the essential ingredients of offence under section 201, 409, 420 IPC are also not available hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

    7. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the entire proceeding which has been inquired by the concerned Inquiry Officer was for the period when the applicant was rendering her duty as District Welfare Officer along with charge of District Minority Welfare Officer and as such she is liable to produce the documents required in the year 2015 and 2016.

    8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the arguments so raised by learned AGA is not acceptable since this fact has not been disputed that applicant has already been retired way back in the year 2013 itself and as such after retirement how any Government employee can produce the documents which are not in her custody, moreover non-production of document from retired employee cannot saddle offence under Section 204 IPC against a retired employee. Further from perusal of entire material available on record, essential ingredients required for offence under sections 201, 409 and 420 IPC are also missing in the instant matter, hence the same are also not made out against the applicant. NA528 No. 43311 of 2025

    3

    9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is hardly any attraction of Section 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC against the applicant, moreover there is no specific allegation in respect of the embezzlement of the amount pertains to Public Exchequer which was to be distributed/extended in favour of the eligible candidates of the minority section of the society and as such entire proceeding of Case no. 6577 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 47 of 2016 wherein applicant has been implicated under Section 201, 204, 409, 420 IPC, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra are hereby set aside which includes the charge sheet dated 27.12.2022 along with summoning order dated 01.04.2024.

    10. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed

    accordingly.

    February 16, 2026

    Shaswat NA528 No. 43311 of 2025

    4

    (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

    4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Smt. Rashmi Prabha Shastri v. State of U.P. and Another
    (Feb 16, 2026)