Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 87 (ALL)

PRADUMN SINGH INDRA DEO PANDIT v. STATE OF U P

2000-01-18

O.P.GARG, V.K.CHATURVEDI

body2000
O. P. GARG, J. Dr. Pradumn Singh and Indra Deo Pandit, who are respectively Principal and Assistant Accountant in Budha Post Graduate College, Kushinagar, District Kushinagar have been arraigned of the offences punishable under Sections 408/419/420/467/468/471, I. P. C. pursuant to the F. I. R. laid by Chanan Singh Dhillon Secretary of the Committee of Management of the said college, at P. S. Kasiya, District Kushinagar giving rise to Crime Case No. 345 of 1999. 2. By means of Criminal Misc. Writ No. 3897 of 1999, Dr. Pradumn Singh, Principal of the College, who has since been suspended pending departmental en quiry, prayed that the impugned F. I. R. be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents not to arrest him in the aforesaid crime. On 30-7-1999, this Court passed an interim order directing that till the next date of listing or until the submis sion of the charge-sheet, whichever is ear lier, the arrest of Dr. Pradumn Singh in the aforesaid crime shall remain stayed. The interim order was extended till further or ders on 11 -11 -1 999. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 3. Subsequently, Criminal Misc. Writ No. 7730 of 1999 came to be filed on behalf of Indra Deo Pandit, who has prayed for the reliefs as have been claimed by Dr. Pradumn Singh. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 5-1-2000, learned Counsel for the parties made a statement that the counter- affidavits filed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3897 of 1999 filed by Dr. Pradumn Singh may also be read in the subsequent petition and that both the peti tions be disposed of on merits. According ly we proceed to decide these two petitions on merits. 4. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri R. K. Ojha appearing on behalf of first informant-Chanan Singh Dhillon and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A. G. A, for the respondents, at considerable length. 5. Dr. Pradumn Singh, petitioner eulogizing himself as a praiseworthy Prin cipal of the college has levelled certain allegations against Dilip Singh Majithia, President and Chanan Singh Dhillon, Secretary of the Committee of Manage ment of the College. According to him, they always wanted to harass him and demanded money from the college funds for their personal use and since the petitioner did not oblige them, they felt incensed and annoyed. According to him, they always wanted to harass him and demanded money from the college funds for their personal use and since the petitioner did not oblige them, they felt incensed and annoyed. In support of the allegations, Dr. Pradumn Singh has relied upon a number of documents annexed with the petition. It is further pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case of murder of J. N. Singh, a Lecturer of the college, at the behest and in collusion of some office bearers of the Committee of Management, and since the investigation of the murder case has since been trans ferred to C. B. C. I. D. , a false and fabricated report, with a view to humiliate and vex the petitioner has been lodged against him. It is alleged that according to the impugned F. I. R. itself, it is clear that the entire money was paid through vouchers, which were approved by the office bearers of the com mittee of management itself. 6. Sri Indra Deo Pandit, in his turn, has alleged that all the allegations in the F. I. R. are against the Principal of the col lege and that he has worked under his subordination as Assistant Accountant and, was bound to obey the directions of the Principal. It is further alleged that he is not responsible for any embezzlement as he himself had no power to work inde pendently and as such the allegations are of no consequence against him. He has also made certain allegations of mala fide against the management and has assigned the reasons for his false implication as a contempt petition was filed by him before this Court in which certain directions were issued. 7. Sri Satish Chandra Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the allegations contained in the F. I. R. are nothing but a conglomeration of calumny and falsehood and, therefore, investiga tion on the F. I. R. against the petitioners would be unwise. It was also urged by him that the F. I. R. is the product of the mala fide, or lack of bonafide on the part of the Secretary of the Committee of Manage ment who for extraneous considerations was impelled to lodge the report. Both the submissions have been repelled by the learned Counsel for the first informant as well as the State. 8. Both the submissions have been repelled by the learned Counsel for the first informant as well as the State. 8. To begin with, it may be mentioned that both the petitioners are involved in Case Crime No. 345 of 1999 under Sec tions 408/419/420/467/468 and 471, I. P. C. P. S. Kasiya, District Kushinagar. A bare reading of the F. I. R. would indicate that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against both the accused persons who were directly concerned with the handling of the accounts of the institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also not argued before this Court from the aver ments made in the F. I. R. a coinable of fence is not disclosed. The only submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the allegations contained in the F. I. R. are false and, in any case, they are the product of mala fide. Counter- affidavits brought on the record are indicative of the fact that after the receipt of the audit report, it was found that the petitioners have squandered substantial money of the col lege, in question. 9. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioners, therefore, is that in their capacity as Principal and Assistant Ac countant, they have embezzled huge amount by withdrawing the same on the basis of forged and fictitious vouchers. It is well embedded and settled proposition of law that the Court has to be cautious and circumspect while exercising the power of quashing a criminal proceeding. Such power has to be exercised very sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The apex Court has taken the consistent view that the Court should not, except in extra ordinary circumstances, exercise its juris diction to quash the prosecution proceed ings after they have been launched. In the case of Rupam Deal Bajaj v. Kunwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (6) SCC 194 ; 1995 (1) JIG 1155 (SC), it was observed, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon the enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F. I. R. or the complaint and that the ex traordinary or inherent powers do not con fer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The classic exposition of law is to be found in State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 , in which it was laid down as follows: ". . . . . . the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will per mit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed ; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should nor mally be permitted. . . . . . Once an offence is dis closed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investiga tion cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for es tablishing the offence, and for bringing the of fender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is dis closed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequence and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normal ly does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. . . . . . " 10. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normal ly does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. . . . . . " 10. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normal ly not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be com pleted for collecting materials for proving the offence. Without burdening the judg ment with series of decisions on the point, it would be proper to make a passing refer ence to the decision of the apex Court reported in Talab Haji Hussam v. Mad-hukar Purshottam Mondekar, AIR 1958 SC 376 ; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709 ; State of Bihar v. Mitrad Alt Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1 ; 1989 JIC (SC) (Dgt) 24; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ; 1993 JIC 534 (SC); State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192; Meenakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 and State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others, 1996 SCC (Cri) 150. 11. In the backdrop of the above decisions and the firm legal position, which flows from them, this Court would not sift the merits of the defence taken by the petitioners or embark upon an enquiry as to probability or reliability or genuine ness of the allegations made in the F. I. R. The fact remains that prima facie, a cog nizable offence is disclosed from the various averments made in the EI. R. against the petitioners. 12. Now it is the time to consider the question whether the F. I. R. is, in fact, ac tuated by mala fide. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the President and Secretary of the Committee of Management were on inimical terms and on account of acrimonious relations, a false charge has been foisted against the petitioners. The allegation of mala fide cannot be accepted mere for the asking. If from the allegations made in the EI. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the President and Secretary of the Committee of Management were on inimical terms and on account of acrimonious relations, a false charge has been foisted against the petitioners. The allegation of mala fide cannot be accepted mere for the asking. If from the allegations made in the EI. R. and the supporting material, it is disclosed that a cognizable offence is made out, the con duct of the first informant, which may have been tainted with mala fide or due to lack of bona fide, would not at all be relevant. In State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kal-patri and others, (supra), it was observed that if the complaint which is matfe is correct and an offence had been com mitted which will have to be established in a court of law it is of no consequence that the complainant was a person who was inimical or that he was guilty of mala fide. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence of misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. If was further laid down that the allegations of mala fides, may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fide would be no ground for quashing the prosecution. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the material available on record, we are not persuaded to hold that the allegations of mala fide or lack of bona fide are substantiated in the instant case. 13. We have refrained ourselves from making any observation touching the merits of the case and have deliberately avoided to sift the factual aspect of the controversy lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties at the trial. 14. In conclusion, we find that a congnizable offence against the petitioners is clearly made out from the averments made in the F. I. R. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and gravity of the offence, we are of the view that it is not a case fit enough in which intervention of this Court is warranted in the exercise of extraordi nary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are not well merited. 15. Both the writ petitions (Nos. 3897 and 7730 of 1999) are hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 30-7-1999, which was extended till further orders on 11-11-1999 in Criminal Misc. Writ No. 897 of 1999 is hereby discharged. Petitions dismissed. .