Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 200 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh Puri v. State Of Punjab

2000-02-17

IQBAL SINGH

body2000
Judgment Iqbal Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of F.I.R. No. 114 dated 13.12.1995 registered against him in Police Station City, Faridkot, under sections 409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said First Information Report. 2. As per averments contained in the petition, the petitioner was working as District Social Welfare Officer Mansa. He retired on 31.10.1994. According to the petitioner, upto the date of his retirement no civil or criminal case or any inquiry was pending against him. On his retirement, he was not granted the retiral benefits and thus he was compelled to file a writ petition in the year 1995 against the department for the grant of the said benefits. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.8.1995 - directing the respondents therein to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits, within two months of the order. Further case of the petitioner is that the department, in spite of the above direction of the High Court did not decide his case regarding post retiral benefits and instead issued a charge sheet dated 8.11.1995 regarding an incident of misappropriation of money which had taken place on 2.7.1991 and also lodged the aforesaid, F.I.R. against him on the basis of the said charge sheet. 3. It is further averred in the petition that from the contents of the F.I.R. in question, it would be seen that the petitioner has nothing to do with the misappropriated amount of Rs. 1,51,413.63 and the said amount, in fact was misappropriated by his co-accused Garjinder Singh Modi against whom a criminal case had been registered, which is yet pending disposal. 4. Further allegation of the petitioner is that the incident in question related to the year 1991 and till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.10.1994 no action was taken against him by the department and this itself goes to show that he was innocent. 5. Lastly, it was averred that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner only because he had filed the above writ petition against the department. 5. Lastly, it was averred that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner only because he had filed the above writ petition against the department. It was also averred that the incident of the alleged misappropriation is more than four years old, inasmuch as the incident relates to July, 1991 and the criminal case was registered in December, 1995 which is against the statutory rules. It was thus prayed that the F.I.R. deserved to be quashed in view of the law laid down in Des Raj Singal Versus State of Punjab, 1986 (1) P.L.R. 82 : [1986(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 219 (Pb. & Hry.)] and Sardul Singh Versus State of Punjab 1993 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 417. 6. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent despite many adjournments granted for the purpose. 7. I have perused the record of the case and considered the matter. No doubt, this Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings arising therefrom, but this power has to be exercised very sparingly keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various judgments, particularly, in the case of State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal and others, Judgment Today 1990(4) S.C. 650 : (1992) Suppl. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335) : [1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 68 (SC)]. This power has to be used in such cases where a bare reading of the First Information Report does not prima facie make out any case or where the case has been got registered with mala fide intentions to seek revenge or to humiliate innocent persons. But where a bare reading of the First information Report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court will restrain its hand from using this inherent power to quash the proceedings in a criminal case. The normal process of criminal trial cannot be allowed to be cut short in a casual manner. 8. Above apart, in the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to show by reference to any material on record or otherwise, that the F.I.R. in question does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against him. The normal process of criminal trial cannot be allowed to be cut short in a casual manner. 8. Above apart, in the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to show by reference to any material on record or otherwise, that the F.I.R. in question does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against him. Needless to say, the case registered against the petitioner shall be dealt with by the criminal court in accordance with law and if he is innocent as he has claimed in this petition, he will stated acquitted. But at this stage, there is not an iota of any material on record which may show that no prima facie case is made against the petitioner. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and is accordingly hereby dismissed.