Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1632 (MP)

Aditya Singh Sengar v. State of M. P.

2014-12-09

J.K.JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Jarat Kumar Jain, J.:- The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in regard to Crime No. 198/2011 registered at Police Station, Khategaon, District Dewas for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 of the Penal Code. Facts giving rise to this application are that at the relevant time, applicant was Sub-Engineer in M.P. Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, Jila Panchayat, Dewas and was posted in Khategaon, District Dewas. Collector, Dewas received a complaint regarding misappropriation of money in the Gram Panchayat, Dudwas, Tehsil Khategaon, District Dewas in the scheme viz., Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Yojna. On the direction of Collector, Dewas, the Project Officer, District Panchayat, Dewas conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Collector. The Project Officer found that Gram Panchayat, Dudwas fraudulently registered attendance of four dead persons, i.e., Smt. Bonabai w/o. Bodar Shah; Smt. Gulabbai w/o. Gabulal; Ibrahim Khan and Janibai w/o. Kodar on muster roll and it has been shown that payment has been made to these dead persons. In the report, it was found that Sarpanch Omprakash and In-charge Secretary, Nazar Khan have misappropriated the money and SDO, Rural Engineering Services, Bagli and Sub-Engineer (present applicant) have issued the completion certificate. On this basis, Crime No. 198/2011 was registered at Police Station, Khategaon, District Dewas against Sarpanch Omprakash, Secretary Nazar Khan and applicant-Aditya Singh. Being aggrieved with this, applicant has filed this petition on the ground of nondisclosure of commission of offence against him. 2. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that the case is registered on the basis of enquiry report of Project Officer. In this report, there is no allegation against the applicant that he misappropriated the amount or he has committed any forgery for the purposes of cheating. In the report, it is mentioned that the SDO, Rural Engineering Services, Bagli and Sub-Engineer (present applicant) after evaluating the work issued the completion certificate, but it is nowhere mentioned that it was the duty of the Sub-Engineer to verify the attendance and identity of the labours. 3. Learned Counsel for applicant further submits that the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of State Government issued the circular (Annexure A-3) in which the duties and responsibilities of Sub-Engineer are defined. 3. Learned Counsel for applicant further submits that the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of State Government issued the circular (Annexure A-3) in which the duties and responsibilities of Sub-Engineer are defined. It is clear from this circular that duties and responsibilities of Sub-Engineer are in regard to technical advise and supervision of work, but it is nowhere defined that Sub-Engineer will verify the muster roll and the attendance of labours. 4. Learned Counsel for applicant further submits that in the final report, it is nowhere mentioned that any amount was entrusted to the applicant, which he misappropriated or he has committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating. Thus, reading the FIR in its entirety, no offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467and 468 of Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. Thus, the FIR against the present applicant is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supports the impugned order and submits that it is the duty of Sub-Engineer to supervise the work and he has issued the certificate that the payment has been made as per muster roll. Therefore, applicant is liable along with Sarpanch and Secretary. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. 7. The FIR is registered on the basis of enquiry report of Project Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dewas. In this report, there is no allegation against the present applicant that he has misappropriated the Government money entrusted to him. It is also not mentioned that the applicant has committed any forgery. In the report, the allegation against the present applicant is as under:-- Thus, it is clear that the Project Officer in his report has not specifically mentioned that the applicant has committed any offence. 8. Now, I have considered the circular issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the State Government in which the duties and responsibilities of the Sub-Engineer are defined, as under:-- Thus, the duties and responsibilities are in regard to technical advise and supervision of work, but it is not included that Sub Engineer will verify the attendance and identity of the labours. 9. After registration of the criminal case, the Sub-Engineers submitted their representation before the Commissioner, M.P. State Rojgar Guarantee Parishad. The Commissioner vide letter dated 5-9-2011 (Annexure A-5) stated as under:-- 10. 9. After registration of the criminal case, the Sub-Engineers submitted their representation before the Commissioner, M.P. State Rojgar Guarantee Parishad. The Commissioner vide letter dated 5-9-2011 (Annexure A-5) stated as under:-- 10. From the above letter, it reveals that the Commissioner was also of the view that if the name of dead persons are on muster roll and it shown that wages were paid to such persons, then the Sub-Engineer is not liable for that act. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra vs. State of NCT Delhi, 2013 Cri.L.J. 411 (SC), held as under:-- "15. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution, which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdict in the interest of justice, as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding, but also, at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding, but also, at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact, the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused. 12. With the above discussion, I am of the considered view that if the final report and the documents even if accepted in its entirety, do not in any manner disclose the commission of offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code against the present applicant. Consequently, the application filed by applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR registered in regard to Crime No. 198/2011 at Police Station, Khategaon, District Dewas against the present applicant is hereby quashed. The proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR against the applicant are also quashed. But, the proceedings be continued against the other co-accused Omprakash (Sarpanch) and Nazar Khan (Secretary). M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.