Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Bhagwan Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-08

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. and entire criminal prosecution arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No. 120/2009 registered under Sections 409/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner was deputed at Bihar State Tribal Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. South Pramandal, Ranchi for a period of one and half years i.e. from 05.07.1995 to 14.1.1997. It is disclosed in the F.I.R. that during deputation the petitioner was entrusted with various jobs for which he had withdrawn Rs.42,69,850/-. The details of work for which amount was allocated was construction of boundary wall of certain school, construction of some building for school and somewhere construction and repairing of Adiwasi hostels etc. The services of the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department on 14.1.1997. Since he had not substantiated the amount withdrawn by him, the Corporation vide letter No. 140 dated 22.1.1997 asked the him give explanation and details against the amount i.e. Rs. 42,69,850/-which he had withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner in connivance with co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer submitted certain bills showing principal work as well as repairing work done. The question was also raised in the Assembly whereafter a Committee was constituted for making enquiry. The Committee also found the allegation true and submitted report. At the conclusion of the enquiry by the department, it was detected that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh had misappropriated Rs. 9,09,700/-and therefore F.I.R. was lodged and case as indicated above in the writ application was registered. 3. It is submitted that the documents which are annexed with the F.I.R. itself show that the amount withdrawn by the petitioner was not misappropriated rather it was diverted to other projects. It is further pointed out that the amount so withdrawn was not directly expended by the petitioner rather it was handed over to the Assistant Engineer, Pawan Kumar Singh for executing work. The Assistant Engineer after executing the work, submitted the bills which indicate that somewhere the amount allotted for the work was not sufficient and therefore fund allotted for the other projects was diverted and that work was completed. The Assistant Engineer after executing the work, submitted the bills which indicate that somewhere the amount allotted for the work was not sufficient and therefore fund allotted for the other projects was diverted and that work was completed. It is further submitted that it is purely a case of diversion of fund from one project to another project and in that course some irregularities have been done which would not constitute offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner shall hardly be liable for the irregularities committed in diversion of fund which was done without seeking prior approval of the superior authority considering the need of the work. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the argument and submitted that misappropriation of the fund is apparent from the F.I.R. and the documents available on record. First of all the mala fide intention of the petitioner came in light when he had withdrawn total sum of Rs. 42,69,850/-in one stroke. The accused persons had shown that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was used for constructing the boundary wall at Bhagirathi Adiwasi Balika Chhatrawas Nagra Toli, Ranchi. On physical verification, it was found that no work was commenced and there was no material lying on the site then the co-accused had taken another stand that due to dispute of the boundary of the land, the materials were shifted to some other site. Likewise the accused persons had also shown excess amount expended on different projects but it was not approved by the Committee. Lastly, it is submitted that charge-sheet against co-accused Pawak Kumar Singh has already been submitted after collecting evidence and the investigation against this petitioner was compelled to be continued because he was absconding. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the F.I.R. and the documents annexed and material available on record. Prima facie it is apparent that the petitioner withdrew total sum of Rs. 42,69,850/-and kept under his control. It is not the case that on different occasion for executing different project work, the amount was withdrawn. The contention made in the F.I.R. also goes to show that without submitting detailed report and bills against the amount withdrawn by him, he had returned to his parent department and submission of bills were made when the Corporation asked him. It is not the case that on different occasion for executing different project work, the amount was withdrawn. The contention made in the F.I.R. also goes to show that without submitting detailed report and bills against the amount withdrawn by him, he had returned to his parent department and submission of bills were made when the Corporation asked him. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner and co-accused hurriedly tried to justify the amount withdrawn by them and they had submitted bills showing expenditure incurred on different projects. It is also apparent that to justify the expenditure, they had shown that more amount than allocated for a particular project was expended by them but it does not appear from any of the document available on record that excess expenditure incurred on the project have been found correct and it was justified. It is also a point to be considered that during investigation, the police had collected evidence and submitted charge-sheet against co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh. Since the petitioner was absconding at the relevant point of time, no charge-sheet was submitted against him and the investigation remained continued. Thereafter this W.P. was preferred before this Court in which the petitioner has succeeded to obtain interim protection in the year 2010. Since the averments made in the F.I.R. prima facie appears to constitute offence indicating misappropriation of property, I do not feel inclined to quash the F.I.R. and therefore this petition stands dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the court and raise all his grievances and points at the appropriate stage of trial. 6. Interim protection granted vide order dated 16.04.2010 stands vacated and the Trial Court in seisin of case record shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. It is further made clear that I.O. shall also be at liberty to submit charge-sheet if evidence collected against the petitioner justifies to submit charge-sheet.