Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against UP Deputy CM Keshav Maurya Over Fake Degree Allegations

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking criminal charges against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya. The petition accused Maurya of using a fake educational degree during elections and obtaining a petrol pump dealership fraudulently. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh rejected the plea filed by Diwakar Nath Tripathi, a BJP leader and social activist from Prayagraj.

Tripathi's initial application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was dismissed by an additional chief judicial magistrate. He then challenged this decision in the high court. However, the court noted that Tripathi was not personally deceived by Maurya, thus lacking the legal standing to file such a complaint under Section 39 of the CrPC.

High Court's Observations on Legal Standing

The court observed that Tripathi had no locus standi to request an FIR as he was not directly affected by Maurya's alleged actions. Section 39 of the CrPC requires individuals to report certain offences, but Tripathi did not qualify under this provision. The court emphasised that the criminal justice system should not be burdened with baseless complaints from individuals who are neither victims nor aggrieved parties.

Justice Singh remarked that the complaint seemed to be filed with malicious intent, possibly for personal gain or to settle scores. The court highlighted that such actions could clog the judicial system unnecessarily. The proceedings appeared to be initiated with ulterior motives rather than genuine grievances.

Supreme Court's Role in the Case

In January, the Supreme Court intervened, condoning a delay in filing and directing the high court to examine the case on its merits. This came after Tripathi's revision petition was initially dismissed due to being filed over 300 days late. Following this directive, Tripathi submitted a fresh petition with similar allegations and grounds.

The high court had reserved its judgment on May 23, 2025, after hearing arguments from both sides. Despite the Supreme Court's involvement, the high court ultimately found no merit in Tripathi's claims and dismissed his petition. The decision underscores the importance of having a direct grievance when seeking legal action.

This case highlights how courts scrutinise petitions for genuine grievances and discourage misuse of legal procedures for personal vendettas or non-substantive claims. It serves as a reminder that legal actions must be grounded in legitimate concerns rather than speculative or retaliatory motives.

With inputs from PTI