Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 747 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar Taneja v. State of Haryana

2000-07-14

AMAR BIR SINGH GILL

body2000
JUDGMENT Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. - In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No. 467 of 1992, Police Station City, Ambala under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and the proceedings consequent thereto being illegal, malicious and sheer abuse of the process of law. 2. Shri S.D. Gautam, Treasury Officer, Ambala who was posted in place of petitioner No. 1 filed a written complaint, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-1, alleging inter alia that while checking of pension record of Ambala Treasury and C.D.A. pension register beside making physical checking in respect of P.P.O. No. C/3094/88 in favour of Hori Lal, he came to know that Shri Hori Lal died on 30.5.1991. However, the Treasury Officer, petitioner No. 1 and his concerned staff continuously made the payment of pension till July 1992. The last payment was drawn on 23.8.1992. Thus, an amount of Rs. 12,374/- was drawn fraudulently against the pension account of Hori Lal, deceased. Likewise, it also came to his notice that one pensioner Smt. Man Kaur expired on 5.6.1989 and payment of Rs. 16,531/- was fraudulently made against her pension account from 30.6.1989 to 26.6.1992. No such payments were to be made after the demise of the pensioners; besides that according to rule 4.106 of S.T.R., before allowing the payment, verification of the pensioner is to be made physically by the Treasury Officer concerned. It was, thus, clear that wrong verification was done with mala fide intention and to defraud the State Government by petitioner No. 1 and his staff in connivance with each other. This criminal act was committed with the connivance of the petitioner No. 1 and others named in the complaint. It is further informed that fraudulent payments were drawn in cash from State Bank of India, Ambala. 3. On the basis of this complaint, Annexure P-1, First Information Report impugned in this petition was registered against the petitioners. Assailing the F.I.R. and consequent proceedings thereto, the petitioners claim that the complaint made by respondent No. 2 was on account of personal grudge and malice. 3. On the basis of this complaint, Annexure P-1, First Information Report impugned in this petition was registered against the petitioners. Assailing the F.I.R. and consequent proceedings thereto, the petitioners claim that the complaint made by respondent No. 2 was on account of personal grudge and malice. However, from the contents of F.I.R., no offence as defined in Sections 415 and 420 Indian Penal Code is made out as there is no allegation or no element of deception or fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioners which may attract the provisions of Section 420 Indian Penal Code There is also no allegation that the petitioners withdrew amount themselves and misappropriated the same, thus, deceiving the Treasury Office or the State Government. Besides, there was no mention in the complaint that if any legal representative of the deceased pensioners ever approached any body with the allegation that some body was drawing the pension on their behalf. The complaint is vague on the face of it besides that Rule 4.106 was framed in the year 1934-35 when there were few pensioners in every treasury. In view of increasing of pensioners these days, which are more than 4,000, it is not humanly possible for a Treasury Officer to personally and physically verify each and every pensioner and as such the assistance of an Assistant Superintendent and supporting staff has been provided. It is further contended that there is no evidence which can connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 4. In the reply filed by the opposite parties, the allegations of the petitioners have been denied. Death certificates of Hori Lal and Smt. Man Kaur fully support the date of their death and drawing of pension subsequent thereto proves the fraudulent withdrawal of the government money besides that as per rule photograph of the pensioner is available on record. The photographs of said deceased pensioners were in fact available to the petitioners on record which proves that the withdrawal of the amount of pension was intentionally allowed by the petitioners in connivance with their co-accused. It is further contended that the case registered against the petitioners is not only under section 420 but also under Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. It is further contended that the case registered against the petitioners is not only under section 420 but also under Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. An information received by the police under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, is an information in respect of commission of cognizable offence so that investigation into the allegations contained in the F.I.R. may commence against the accused persons. F.I.R. is filed with the intention of initiation of investigation of a crime committed by alleged accused persons named therein. The investigation of the allegations may not ultimately confine only to a particular offence, it may result in addition of other offences also committed by the accused persons as defined in the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. For quashing of an F.I.R. primarily, it is to be shown by an accused that no offence of any kind involving him is made out from the contents of the F.I.R. It may be emphasised that an F.I.R. can be quashed if it does not make out the ingredients of any offence defined in the Indian Penal Code The allegations contained in the complaint, Annexure P-1, made by opposite party No. 2 specifically mention the instances where the pensioners had since expired and the petitioners in the capacity of Treasury Officers disbursed the pension subsequent to their death. Obviously, the pension can be disbursed to an alive pensioner whose photograph is on the pension file for the purpose of his identification and the presence before the Treasury Officer seeking the withdrawal of the pension amount. In case a person in the capacity of Treasury Officer like the petitioner allows disbursement of pension to a person other than the person actually entitled to get the same, he commits obviously fraud with the record and allows wrongful gain to the person not entitled as defined under Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code Such an act of the petitioner cannot be termed but for a fraudulent act as defined under Section 25 of the Indian Penal Code 7. As already referred to above, the complaint does contain the allegations which make out a criminal offence against the petitioners and it is by investigation it is to be ascertained through the collection of evidence and material by the Investigating Officer as to the commission of particular offence by the petitioners personally or in connivance or in conspiracy with any person of their staff. The F.I.R. in this case, in the circumstances, cannot be termed as not making out any offence against the petitioners. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.