Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 991 (HP)

R. K. Jha v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-06-01

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner No. 1 is an accused in FIR No. 145/14, Annexure P-1 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. He is the Chairman of All India Environment and Rural Development Social Organization having its head office at Dwarka in Delhi (petitioner No. 2). The department of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Himachal Pradesh has released the funds to the tune of Rs. 9.60 lacs to the petitioners for construction, operation and maintenance of Jan Suvidha Parisars (toilets and bath complex) at Kandrour-Harlong Chowk, District Bilaspur in order to provide facilities to the tourism/local people. The agency chaired by the accused-petitioner No. 1 has executed some work at the site and abandoned the work at his own without any intimation to the department. Now the correspondence being made is also not attended to nor is he picking the telephone calls. The agreement was executed with the Director, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Himachal Pradesh by the accused-petitioner No. 1. Therefore, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur by Deputy Director, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Mandi and Bilaspur. On the basis of the complaint so made, FIR has been registered. 2. The status report placed on record reveals that accused-petitioner No. 1 after the registration of the case is not available to the investigating agency for the purpose of investigation and has absconded. 3. Admittedly the accused-petitioner No. 1 is the chairman of the agency, namely, All India Environment & Rural Development Social Organization. There is again no quarrel so as to he has received a sum of Rs. 9.60 lacs from the department of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Himachal Pradesh for construction, operation and maintenance of Jan Suvidha Parisars (toilet and bath complex) at Kandrour-Harlog chowk in District Bilaspur. The police report reveals that the work is incomplete. The accused-petitioner No. 1 has stopped the work without any intimation to the department. The allegations against him that he is now not responding to the correspondence being made nor picking the telephone calls seem to be correct as he has not associated with the investigation of the case also. The only argument put forth by learned Counsel is that the liability if any is civil in nature and not criminal. The allegations against him that he is now not responding to the correspondence being made nor picking the telephone calls seem to be correct as he has not associated with the investigation of the case also. The only argument put forth by learned Counsel is that the liability if any is civil in nature and not criminal. While drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions contained under Section 415 of the Indian Penal code it has been submitted that in the given facts and circumstances no criminal liability can be fastened on the accused-petitioner No. 1. This Court feel that the submissions so made at this stage are premature because this case is yet at initial stage. The judgment of the Apex Court in V.P. Shrivastava versus Indian Explosives Limited and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 is hardly of any help to the case of the accused-petitioner No. 1 being distinguishable on facts. 4. As a matter of fact, appropriate course available to the accused-petitioner No. 1 was to have associated himself with the investigation of the case and urged the points in his defence during the course of investigation. The investigating agency either may have filed the cancellation report in the event of no case ultimately found to be made out against him or in the alternative the accused-petitioner No. 1 to have resorted to the remedy available to him for the cancellation of FIR. This petition at this stage is, however, premature. In case the accused-petitioner No. 1 is innocent why he has not been responding to the correspondence made by the department. Otherwise also, a FIR in exercise of the inherit powers vested in the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be quashed where the Court is satisfied that to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused would amount abuse of process of law. Here accused-petitioner No. 1 has received a sum of Rs. 9.60 lacs from the department. He has not completed the work and rather absconded. He even has failed to respond to the correspondence made by the department. 5. Therefore, at this stage, when the investigation in the case is not at all progressed due to non availability of the accused-petitioner No.1 for the purpose of interrogation, this petition being premature and also devoid of any merits, is dismissed.