Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1836 (RAJ)

Ladhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.60/2011 dated 27.01.2011 of Police Station, ACB, Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter) read with section 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Birbal Ram resident of village Chak 11- KD, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar has lodged a report at Police Station, ACB, Jaipur while alleging that though his grandson Vinod Kumar son of Jagdish Prasad died on 03.03.2007, but the Cashier - Ladhu Ram of The Gangangar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') Branch, Rawla has drawn amount of ST Loan of Rs. 54,000/- and Dairy Loan of Rs. 24,000/- on 26.06.2009 and 21.07.2007 respectively in the name of his grandson. It is also alleged that as his grandson died on 03.03.2007, there is no question of taking loan by him after his death but the Cashier Ladhu Ram by putting forged signatures of his grandson has drawn the said loan amount. One Jangir Singh resident of Chak 10 KD has also filed a complaint while alleging that his wife Raj Kaur died in July, 2007 but Ladhu Ram - Cashier has drawn an amount of Rs. 12,850/- in her name as ST Loan after her death. It is also alleged that Ladhu Ram-Cashier has forged the signatures of his wife and thereafter drawn the said amount. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and other accused-persons for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said FIR while alleging that during the departmental enquiry, he was exonerated while concluding that the petitioner was not involved in drawing the loan amount in the names of dead persons and the Manager of the Rawla Branch of the Bank, was the person responsible for the forgery. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and argued that the Anti Corruption Bureau, Sri Ganganagar, after conducting thorough investigation in the matter, has found that along with the Manager and Branch Manager of the Branch Rawla of the Bank, the petitioner, after forging the record, has drawn loan amount in the names of the dead persons and as such it is clear that the petitioner was involved in the commission of offence punishable sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It is also informed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Anti Corruption Bureau has already concluded the investigation against the petitioner and the prosecution sanction has also been obtained from the competent authority and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned FIR. 7. In the impugned FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner along with the Manager and the Branch Manager of the Bank has illegally drawn the loan amount in the names of the dead persons by forging their signatures. From bare reading of the contents of FIR, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 8. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 9. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 10. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 11. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question. 12. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******