Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1017 (HP)

Pritam Chand v. State Of H. P.

2017-09-01

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - Petitioners herein are Accused in case registered against them and others under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide FIR No. 5 of 2003 registered in Police Station SV & ACB, Dharamshala with the allegations that Petitioner No. 1 (wrongly mentioned as Petitioner No. 2 in this Petition) being posted as Clerk in Sub Employment Exchange, Jawali at the relevant time despite being on leave managed to sponsor the name of his daughter Sushma Katoch and Kuldeep Singh, son-in-law of Accused No. 2 (wrongly mentioned as Petitioner No. 1 in the Petition) in the list of the candidates sponsored, who were not eligible nor their names could have been sponsored, hence forged the said list. Accused-Petitioner No. 2 Gajay Singh Rana at the relevant time was posted as District Education Officer, Kangra District at Dharamshala whereas Accused-Petitioner No. 1 Pritam Chand as Clerk in Sub Employment Exchange, Jawali. Their co-Accused Surjit Singh Atwal was posted as Superintendent in the Office of Accused-Petitioner No. 2. The said Accused has also managed to get the name of his two sons, namely, Pankeshwar and Yogeshwar, who are also Accused persons, in the list of candidates, sponsored from Sub Employment Exchange, Baijnath. 2. The prayer to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Sub Judge Kangra at Dharamshala has been sought on the grounds, inter alia, that the Accused-Petitioners have no role to play in the selection of the candidates who appeared for interview for the post of Laboratory Attendant. The Selection Committee to conduct the interview of the eligible candidates was constituted by the State Government. It is the Selection Committee which has conducted the entire process and on preparation of the merit list, issued appointment letters to successful candidates. Being so, the FIR and also the pending criminal proceedings against them are not legally sustainable. They neither participated in any conspiracy nor anything has come on record during the course of investigation. Also that, they being government servants, have discharged their duties honestly and with all sincerity. The FIR, as such, came to be registered against them falsely. The FIR having been registered against them in the year 2003 whereas challan presented in the Court in the year 2011. Also that, they being government servants, have discharged their duties honestly and with all sincerity. The FIR, as such, came to be registered against them falsely. The FIR having been registered against them in the year 2003 whereas challan presented in the Court in the year 2011. They being retired government servants have already suffered a lot on account of registration of this case falsely against them. Above all, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment Annexure P-2 has directed the State Government to reinstate 5 selected candidates whose services were terminated consequent upon the registration of this case. Therefore, it is canvassed that there is no grain of truth in the allegations levelled against the Accused-Petitioners and as such, the FIR as well as consequential criminal proceedings pending against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On hearing learned counsel representing the parties on both sides and going through the record, at the outset, it is deemed appropriate to discuss the legal principles laid down by various High Courts and also the Apex Court in several judicial pronouncements, one of such judgment is that of this Court in Bhavak Prashar vs. State of H.P. & anr., Cr.MMO No. 200 of 2015, decided on 16th August, 2016. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: "10. Otherwise also, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure should not be exercised to defeat the legitimate prosecution and the High Court rather should refrain from exercising such powers in a case where on an information lodged at the police Station an offence is registered and the evidence collected during the course of investigation. I am drawing support in this regard from the judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P. and others, (2013) 3 Him. L.R 1897. I reproduce the relevant portion of this judgment which reads as follow: "5. Having gone through the record and also analyzing the rival submissions, before coming to the merits of the case, it is desirable to take down the legal principles applicable to a case of this nature settled by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follow: "108. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follow: "108. 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 extraordinary 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 given an exhaustive list of myriad kind 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. 6. 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 in 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." 6. What, therefore, emerges from the law so laid down by the Apex Court is that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C, should not be exercised to defeat the legitimate prosecution and the High Court rather should refrain itself from exercising such powers in a case where on an information lodged at the police Station an offence is registered and the evidence collected during the course of investigation. Such powers, however, can be exercised in those cases where the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at its face value and accepted as true in its entirety, does not disclose even prima-facie the commission of an offence as it is that complaint which can be said to be the abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. 7. The apex Court has again held in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC 155 , as under: "14. The High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of Appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of Appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material." 4. The crux of the ratio of the judgment (supra) in which the judgments of the Apex Court have also been considered, therefore, is that the FIR registered against an offender and the consequential criminal proceedings can only be quashed and set aside where amongst others, the Court seized of the matter is satisfied that the evidence and other material collected by the Investigating Agency even if relied upon as it is, no findings of conviction against the Accused can be recorded. The present, however, is not a case of this nature for the reason that admittedly, Accused-Petitioner No. 1 Pritam Chand in the year 2000 was appointed as Clerk in Sub Employment Exchange, Jawali. The Sub Employment Exchange has sponsored the names of 10 candidates for selection to the post of Laboratory Attendant vide letter No. 10A 6/2000-57-58 dated 22.1.2000. The names of Sushma Katoch, the daughter of Accused-Petitioner No. 1 and that of Kuldeep Singh, son-in-law of Accused Petitioner No. 2, was not in that list. Accused No. 1 though was on leave from 5.1.2000 to 7.2.2000, however, as per the investigation conducted, he prepared a forged and fictitious list of sponsored candidates under the same diary and dispatch number i.e. 10A/2000-29 dated 22.1.2000 and included the names of aforesaid Sushma Katoch and Kuldeep Singh therein. He himself signed the same as Sub Employment Officer, Jawali and passed on the same to his co-Accused Petitioner No. 2 herein. The investigation further reveals that aforesaid Sushma Katoch and Kuldeep Singh were not eligible for being considered against the post of Laboratory Attendant. However, both the Accused in connivance with each other have prepared the forged and fictitious record and ensured their participation in the selection process. The investigation further reveals that aforesaid Sushma Katoch and Kuldeep Singh were not eligible for being considered against the post of Laboratory Attendant. However, both the Accused in connivance with each other have prepared the forged and fictitious record and ensured their participation in the selection process. On the basis of such forged and fictitious record, they ultimately were selected and appointed as Laboratory Attendants. 5. During the course of scientific investigation got conducted in the matter, the list of sponsored candidates was found to be forged one because Accused-Petitioner No. 1 prepared the same and forged the signature of Sub-Employment Officer thereon. Kuldeep Singh was not at all enrolled in Sub Employment Exchange, Jawali, however, it is his father-in-law Accused-Petitioner No. 2 who forged his signature on the envelope X-1 maintained in the employment exchange at the time of registration of name. This fact was allegedly established during the course of scientific investigation got conducted by the prosecution. 6. Not only this, but as per further allegations against Accused-Petitioner No. 2, he never issued an Office Order deputing the staff to conduct the examination/interview for the post in question and rather deputed the staff of his choice telephonically. As per order of his office dated 15.2.2000, the then Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kangra, the then Dy. District Education Officer, Dehra and the then Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School (Girls), Dharamshala were deputed to conduct the examination, however, when they were interrogated disclosed that they were not deputed to conduct the interview for the post of Laboratory Attendant either by way of written order or on Oral directions. Therefore, the selection of the Laboratory Attendant during the tenure of Accused-Petitioner No. 2 as District Education Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala was found to be illegal. 7. On the basis of the evidence discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that both Accused-Petitioners have been implicated falsely by the police in the case in hand. True it is that vide judgment Annexure P-2, a Division Bench of this Court has held the appointment of few of the selected candidates, including Yogeshwar, Pankeshwar and Kuldeep Singh aforesaid as legal and valid, however, the judgment rendered in a writ Petition or for that matter in Letters Patent Appeal cannot be made basis at this stage when prima-facie there is evidence to show that both Accused-Petitioners are involved in the commission of the alleged offence. In view of what has been said hereinabove, there is no merit in this Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The records of the case be returned to the trial Court at once so that the proceedings in the pending trial could proceed further. In view of the FIR was registered long back in the year 2003, it is expected from the learned trial Judge to proceed in the case expeditiously and dispose it of at the earliest.