Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 28 (MEG)

Robert T. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2018-07-06

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. The petitioner seeks quashment of Baghmara PS Case No. 32(06) 2017 registered under Sections 409/419/420/465 IPC, on the written report of the Chief Executive Officer, Baghmara Municipal Board, Baghmara dated 22nd June 2017 regarding misappropriation of DAY-NULM central fund amounting to Rs. 8,95,348/- out of the total fund money of Rs. 11,63,258/- allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has also lodged written report which has been registered on 18th June, 2017 as Baghmara P.S. Case No. 31(6)2017 under Sections 120(B)/406/409 IPC read with Section 13(d)(e) (ii)(iii) Prevention of Corruption Act against the Chief Executive Officer, Baghmara Municipal Board, Baghmara. 3. In the report it has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 8,90,062/- vide bill numbers 06 to 14 and cheque numbers 217436 to 217444, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been paid as salary to the Manager, NULM for the period from June, 2016 to December, 2016. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,062/- has been misused or diverted for purchase of laptop, officer computer, flight fare for attending National Green Tribunal etc. which has been done in deviation of NULM guidelines. 4. Investigation in both the two cases is in progress, learned senior P.P. has produced case diaries of both cases. The investigation as on date has not been completed. 5. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the FIR lodged by the Chief Executive Officer against the petitioner is with the object of wrecking vengeance and with the object negating the allegations as levelled by the petitioner against the Chief Executive Officer. His further contention is that the subject matter of both two FIRs (cases) petitioner is allegedly implicated so to make him scapegoat. 6. While going through copies of the two written reports one of the Chief Executive Officer another of the petitioner based on which two separate cases have been registered, in the background of the allegations require detail investigation which is in progress. 7. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is well defined, it is trite that power is to be exercised with great care and circumspection so as to avoid any situation which may affect or frustrate investigation or have affect of curtailing investigation. 8. 7. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is well defined, it is trite that power is to be exercised with great care and circumspection so as to avoid any situation which may affect or frustrate investigation or have affect of curtailing investigation. 8. Soul of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to advance cause of justice and avoid abuse of process of the Court, Court is to intervene in exceptional circumstances where it is noticed or it shall be noticeable that continuation of proceedings will result in miscarriage of justice. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner during course of submission has projected that impression of the petitioner is that case as registered against the Chief Executive Officer has been concluded as not proved but no intimation has been given to the petitioner. Such submission has been refuted by learned senior P.P. by stating that case diaries clearly suggest that the investigation is in full swing, even otherwise in case would have been concluded as not proved, then before accepting closure report learned Magistrate is bound to put complainant on notice for lodging protest against closure report. That stage in view of the fact is yet to come and may be the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded. 10. Question in essence is whether it is a fit case to persuade the Court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the answer is to be in negative. 11. Keeping in view the allegations as appear in both two cases registered, at this stage least said is better so as to avoid prejudice to either parties. Investigation in the two cases pertaining to NULM in context of the allegations is required thoroughly, it is not a case that two FIRs are lodged by one person regarding the same occurrence. No doubt allegations are regarding the same fund but types of allegations against the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board are different to what has been alleged by the petitioner. That apart, learned senior P.P. has rightly placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Yadav v. Ram Nandan Yadav and Others, 1990 (2) (Supp) SCC 55. Para-2 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted. "2. That apart, learned senior P.P. has rightly placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Yadav v. Ram Nandan Yadav and Others, 1990 (2) (Supp) SCC 55. Para-2 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted. "2. We are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the investigation made by the Criminal Investigation Department into the second FIR registered by Naya-Gaon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986. In view of the fact that the two cases (being P.S. Cases Nos. 32 and 33 of 1986) related to the same incident it was open to the Magistrate after the two reports came to be placed before him to consider what action according to law is called for. Accordingly we set aside the order of the High Court but we leave it open to the trial court that if in course of trial, evidence appears against any specific person, the court would be free to deal with the situation according to the requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." 12. For stated facts and reasons of the law, there is no scope for interference with the investigation of the case registered against the petitioner. It is made clear that disposal of this petition and observations made herein shall not in any manner be construed as expression of opinion on merit of the case. The investigating agency shall investigate the case on its merit without being influenced by the observations made herein or by disposal of this petition. Case diaries of both two cases as produced by learned senior P.P. after perusal are returned to him in the open Court. 13. Disposed as above.