Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 78 (JK)

Shanti Devi v. State of J&K

2019-02-22

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2019
Judgment 1. By this common judgment, petition filed under Section 561A Cr. P.C. ( CR.M.C. No.248/2010 and two Revision petitions bearing Nos. 63/2010 and D-21/2011 are being disposed of as all these petitions are directed against the same order dated 16.07.2010 passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu. 2. In CRR 63/2010, petitioner SHANTI DEVI seeks quashing of order dated 16.07.2010 and the charge sheet framed vide dated 06.08.2010. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.07.2010, petitioner-Shanti Devi challenges the same on the grounds; that the learned Trial court has not felt necessary to formulate the questions of legal import and the important facts out of the prosecution evidence u/s 161 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence on record that the accused officials in abuse of their official positions conferred undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and to the petitioner and corresponding loss to the state exchequer; that the petitioner has served the Deptt. For about seven years and her attendance was recorded continuously in the sub centre Ratnal till 11.11.2003; that the prosecution has failed to know the whereabouts of the alleged Shanti devi W/o Chuha Ram. In the case of the petitioner, there is no other Shanti Devi who has ever worked on the post. The court below has not considered that whether the accused petitioner was inserted fraudulently and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. And whether the alleged Shanti Devi w/o Chua Ram was alive at the time of issuance of order of recommendation by CMO and further when the order of appointment of the petitioner was issued by the then Director Health Services Jammu; that the court below has also not considered the fact whether Dr. And whether the alleged Shanti Devi w/o Chua Ram was alive at the time of issuance of order of recommendation by CMO and further when the order of appointment of the petitioner was issued by the then Director Health Services Jammu; that the court below has also not considered the fact whether Dr. B.B. Sharma BMO Bishnah allowed the petitioner to join at Sub-centre Ratnal (Bishnah) vide his order No.153 dated 26-05-1997 and orders No.136 San 137 dated 21-05-1997 without verifying the facts that ETS of similar name but different parentage was already working in Sub-centre Ratnal; that the court below has similarly not considered the fact that the list referred by CMO vide his No. E-1/86 dated 17-04-1997 to the DHS does not contain the husband’s name or parentage of the petitioner; that the Learned Judge has given the effect of this fact only to the three official involved in the case and has ignored the innocent poor petitioner Safaiwala; that the investigating officer has opted not to seize the original list and the record pertaining to the engagement and service of the alleged Shanti Devi W/o Chuha Ram. Besides he has also not seized the record allegedly furnished by CMO from the office of the DHS and as such no material whatsoever has been collected to show that the date of birth of the alleged Shanti Devi and the petitioner actually working in the field is other than the date of birth shown against their names in the list. While discharging the CMO concerned, the Ld. Judge has satisfied himself that none of the incumbents including the petitioner was ever called in his office and has collected their bio-data because there is no material on record; that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, her regularization order has been issued on 25-04-1997. There is no complaint filed by any person as the petitioner herein, before any of the officials or the police agency. The Ld. There is no complaint filed by any person as the petitioner herein, before any of the officials or the police agency. The Ld. Court below has on the one hand stated that at the stage of framing charge the court has to see that the material on record and the ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence but on the other hand without furnishing any material on record and without finding the fact of alleged 2nd Shanti Devi W/o Chuha Ram in existence officially or physically still the petitioner has put to charge which is neither legal nor correct to the facts and circumstances of the case; that the service record of the petitioner categorically reveals that she had served the Dept., signed the attendance register and received the salary with her signatures. As such the petitioner is neither a fake beneficiary nor alleged Shanti Devi W/o Chuha Ram ever physically attending the health center Ratnal; that the accused C.M.O., ?.?.O., and the concerned clerk have been discharged on the basis of the same evidence in the challan so question of criminal conspiracy does not arise at all. The petitioners pay received by her does not amount to the undue benefit and so question of corruption also does not arise. 3. In CRMC No. 248/2010, petitioners Sham Lal and Pawan Kumar seek quashing of order dated 16.07.2020 and charge framed against the petitioners under Section 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioners, namely, Sham Lal and Pawan Kumar in CRMC No. 248/2010 have challenged the impugned order dated 16.07.2010 on the grounds; that the impugned order and charge sheet is against law and facts. So the same is not sustainable; that as per the allegation, it is the CMO, his Senior Assistant and BMO, who are more responsible but the Court has held that CMO has furnished the list which contains neither the parentage nor husband of the incumbents while the Court has not considered that the CMO has furnished “the list along with all the relevant documents including the engagement orders by which they were engaged as Part Time Safaiwalas with date and time. This was not appreciated by the Hon’ble Court and the Court discharged the CMO who is more responsible ignoring the fact that the petitioners have no concern and have no records. This was not appreciated by the Hon’ble Court and the Court discharged the CMO who is more responsible ignoring the fact that the petitioners have no concern and have no records. The Part-Time Safaiwalas are working in Block Bishnah at various Sub Centres and the petitioners are working in the office of Director Health Services and it is the Director Health Services, who has issued the order of regularization and the petitioners have no concern while the list was prepared by the S.O, Govind Singh and sent the list along with the relevant materials. The Court discharged the CMO while it is the CMO who has done all the things and who has manipulated the list which is clear from the prosecution record and charged the petitioners who have no concern with that. Neither the petitioners, who are working as Section Officer and Senior Assistant, had the job of passing any order of regularization and they have no record also while the petitioners are the best witnesses instead of accused in the case; that the orders are also illegal on the ground that the Court has discharged the BMO Bishnah Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma on the ground that he has only directed the persons who were regularized to report at the Sub Centre allotted to them by the Director Health Services while the Court has not appreciated that the BMO has furnished the Bio-data of serving PTS and the BMO and CMO are equally responsible for sending the records to the office of Director Health Services for regularization of these PTS. BMO and CMO are the officers in whose office the record of these persons are maintained and neither in the office of petitioners who are serving in the office of Director Health Services. The Court has discharged the persons who are responsible and charged the petitioners who have no concern with the regularization of these PTS. BMO and CMO are the officers in whose office the record of these persons are maintained and neither in the office of petitioners who are serving in the office of Director Health Services. The Court has discharged the persons who are responsible and charged the petitioners who have no concern with the regularization of these PTS. So the orders are not sustainable; that the orders are also illegal on the ground that the Court has charged the petitioners under Section 120-B RF read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act while there is no record which shows that the petitioners have ever done any criminal conspiracy and there is no material on record which proves the conspiracy of the petitioners with the Director Health Services or any of the officers while the petitioners have no concern with the issuance of any order by the Director Health Services. If anything has to be done it is done by the Director or CMO or BMO and Senior Assistant Govind Singh who has prepared the list and who have sent the documents and passed the order of regularization, and the petitioners have nothing to do with that. It is not in the job of petitioners. So the orders are not sustainable as no conspiracy has been proved; that the Court has also framed charge under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act while under Section 5(2) of the Act, if any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, provided that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year but not less than six months. In the present case, Court has not mentioned that which misconduct has been committed by the petitioners while even this act does not fall under the criminal misconduct. Criminal misconduct cause with the definition that when a person commits any criminal misconduct but in the present case, no act of the petitioners falls under any of the category. In the present case, Court has not mentioned that which misconduct has been committed by the petitioners while even this act does not fall under the criminal misconduct. Criminal misconduct cause with the definition that when a person commits any criminal misconduct but in the present case, no act of the petitioners falls under any of the category. So no ingredient of any Section has been proved and the petitioners have been involved in a false case and the Court has discharged the persons who are responsible and charged the petitioners who have no concern with any of the alleged act which is mentioned in the challan while it is the CMO, BMO and Senior Assistant, who are responsible. On the one hand, the Court has mentioned that the prosecution has attached with the charge sheet the documents named in the list of documents attached with the challan and on the other hand mentioned that some of the documents are lying with the prosecution. So it is clear that the Court without appreciating that it is the CMO who has sent the list along with Bio-data of the incumbents who are to be regularized and on the basis of that list regularization order was passed. So the order is not sustainable. 4. CRR No.9900005/2011 has been filed by the State against the order dated 16.07.2010 to the extent of discharging the respondents 1 to 3 namely Dr. Abdul Majid, Govind Singh and Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma. In CRR D-21/2011, the State has challenged the impugned order dated 16.07.2010, on the grounds that the order impugned is contrary to law, against the facts of the case and has been passed without appreciating the legal position and needs to be set aside; that the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence on file in the right perspective and erroneously discharged the respondent Nos.1 to 3; that despite cogent and documentary evidence on file to prove the allegations, the Ld Trial Court has ignored the same and passed the order impugned without any rhyme and reasons; that the Ld Judge has wrongly and on flimsy grounds discharged the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3, despite the fact that the respondent No.1 without obtaining any detail from the subordinate units, suo moto prepared the false list and submitted the same to the then Director, Health Services, Jammu. The Ld Trial Court cut-short the proceedings without considering the legal aspect and committed error in law; that non-obtaining of details from subordinate units and preparation of fictitious list of safaiwalas suo-moto speaks of conspiracy in-between them but the Ld Trial Court ignored this fact and passed the order impugned without any basis; that the Ld Trial Court has erroneously held that the then Director acted on a list other than submitted by respondent No.1; that the list submitted by respondent No.1 on 17-04-1997 was received in the office of the then Director on 21-04-1997, on the basis of which regularization order was issued on 25-04-1997. Hence error on this count has also been committed by the Ld Judge while discharging the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3; that the Ld Trial Court has relied upon the documents which are neither relevant with the case nor have any evidentiary value. The reliance, as such, placed upon is imaginary and bad in the eyes of law; that the Ld Trial Court without affording any opportunity to prove the allegations, cut short the proceedings and discharged the respondents No.1 to 3 on the points devoid of any force of law. 5. In CRMC No.248/2010, respondents have filed objections. The stand taken by the respondents is that petitioners have committed offence punishable under Sections 5(2) and 5(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, which is an offence not against an individual but against the society as a whole and they cannot claim leniency or concession from this Court. The further stand taken by the respondents is that the then Director Health Services, Dr R.K. Goel constituted a Committee of Medical Officers to enquire into the alleged bungling committed in regularization of undeserving candidates (SafaiWalas) and on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Committee, Director Health Services, Dr R.K. Goel lodged a written complaint in the Vigilance Organization and thereafter an FIR No.16/99 came to be registered in P/S Vigilance Organization, Jammu; that the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record framed charges against the petitioners; that Dr. M.K, Bhutyal was posted as Director, Health Services, Jammu vide Government Order No. 251/HME of 1995 dated 28-04-1995 and remained posted till 30-04-1997, and for regularization of the part time Safaiwalas, Dr M.K. Bhutyal called the list of such persons from the subordinate units i.e. CMO, Jammu, BMO Bishnah along with full particulars. The CMO Jammu furnished a list of 26 part time Safaiwalas working in Sub Centers in Bishnah to Director, Health Services, Jammu. In the list among others, three Safaiwalas, namely, Smt. Puro Devi, Smt. Preeto Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi were recommended by the then CMO Jammu but Smt. Sushma Devi W/o Sh. Bishan Dass was not included in the list. On the receipt of this list, all the candidates were regularized by the then Director, Health Services, Jammu including above four candidates, who were not working in any of the Sub- Centers before regularization and their names were recommended against those candidates, who were actually existed on the rolls and working as part time Safaiwalas in different Sub-Centers, having similar names. It is averred in the objections that Dr. M.K. Bhutyal and the petitioners/accused persons without further verifying the fact gave undue benefits to the said three candidates and also to Smt. Sushma Devi, whose name were included at the last stage i.e. in Director’s Office. The further stand taken by the respondents is that Dr. M.K. Bhutyal, the then Director Health Services, Jammu in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched with petitioners/accused persons and others regularized the undeserving candidates by abuse of their official position conferring under pecuniary gains upon themselves. 6. Accordingly order impugned passed against the petitioners for charge-sheet has been supported by respondents. 7. I have heard the counsel for parties at length, who have argued vigorously on the grounds mentioned in their respective petitions. 8. In support of their contention for quashing the charges framed against them, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (2) SCC 93 , Nitya Dharmanda @ K. Lenin and Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and Anr. and 2009 AIR SCW 1418, Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar. 9. 8. In support of their contention for quashing the charges framed against them, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (2) SCC 93 , Nitya Dharmanda @ K. Lenin and Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and Anr. and 2009 AIR SCW 1418, Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar. 9. The case of the prosecution is that vide Government order No.145-HMS of 1994 dated 1.3.1994 read with government order No.347/HME of 1997 dated 31.3.1997 posts of Safaiwalas were created in the Health Department to regularize the part-time safaiwalas (for short PTS) working in various sub-centers of the department. Accused Dr. M. K. Bhutyal (now dead), who at the relevant time was posted as Director Health Services, Jammu (for short the DHS), called list of such incumbents from subordinate units i.e. CMO Jammu/BMO Bishnah along with their full particulars in prescribed proforma. BMO Bishnah did not furnish any list to the DHS or the CMO; CMO, Jammu, Dr. Abdul Majid, however, vide his No. E-1/86 dated 17.4.1997 submitted the list comprising of 26 PTS working at various sub-centers in Block, Bishnah. In the list furnished by the CMO which was prepared by Govind Ram, a Senior Assistant of his office, it was alleged that names of three persons, given in column-1 below, who were not serving in the department (for short fake incumbents), were inserted in place of the three PTS with identical names but different parentage, given in column-2, actually working in the department:— Column-1 Column-2 Preeto Devi w/o Amir Hussain (A-7) Preeto Devi w/o Kartar Ghand Puro Devi w/o Sukh Ram (A-8) Puro Devi w/o Babu Ram Shanti Devi d/o Behari Lal (A-9) Shanti Devi w/o Chua Ram 10. These three names figure at serial nos.11, 12 and 6 respectively of the list furnished by the Chief Medical Officer. 11. It is further case of prosecution that Director Health Services- Dr. Bhutyai, vide his No.ES-5/NG/97/3954-56 dt. 25.4.1997 issued the regularization order of the said three fake incumbents, besides one more, namely, Sushma Devi w/o Bishan Dass who did not even figure in the said list came to-be appointed in place of another PTS Sushma Devi D/o Pritam Dass, actually working in the department. Bhutyai, vide his No.ES-5/NG/97/3954-56 dt. 25.4.1997 issued the regularization order of the said three fake incumbents, besides one more, namely, Sushma Devi w/o Bishan Dass who did not even figure in the said list came to-be appointed in place of another PTS Sushma Devi D/o Pritam Dass, actually working in the department. The names of the three fake incumbents given in column-1 (supra) came to be inserted in the list and the total four fake incumbents were regularized fraudulently in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched by them and the CMO, his senior assistant -Govind Singh, the deceased-Dr. M. K. Bhutyal (DHS), his S.O. Sham Lal and Senior Assistant Pawan Kumar Bakshi. The accused officials, thus, in abuse of their official positions conferred undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and the four fake incumbents and corresponding loss to the state exchequer. 12. Dr. Abdul Majid (CMO) and his Senior Assistant Govind Singh fraudulently and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy inserted names of the said three fake incumbents, though they had never worked in any sub-center, in disguise of three serving PTS with identical names but different parentage, thereby paving way for their illegal regularization. The CMO-Dr.Abdul Majid did not call fresh bio data of the serving PTS from the office of BMO, Bishnah and instead he called all the 26 incumbents in his office and checked their documents. He “manipulated the list in such a way, that the names of the incumbents submitted by him were similar to the names of actual incumbents already working in their Sub-centers Kudwal, Kotli, Laswara and Ratnal but with different parentage and date of appointment etc.” It is further case of prosecution that deceased –Dr. M. K. Bhutyal (DHS), his S.O.-Sham Lal and senior assistant- Pawan Kumar, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy gave undue benefit to the said three fake incumbents fraudulently inserted in the list by the CMO without further verification and in addition gave such benefit to one more person whose name did not even figure in the list furnished by the CMO-Abdul Majid. Accused Bharat Bhushan Sharma, BMO, Bishnah then allowed the four fake incumbents to join in the respective sub-centers vide his order Nos.153 dated 26.05.1997 and order Nos.136 and 137 dated 21.5.1997 without verifying the fact that PTS of similar names but different parentage were already working in these sub-centers. Accused Bharat Bhushan Sharma, BMO, Bishnah then allowed the four fake incumbents to join in the respective sub-centers vide his order Nos.153 dated 26.05.1997 and order Nos.136 and 137 dated 21.5.1997 without verifying the fact that PTS of similar names but different parentage were already working in these sub-centers. Accordingly challan was produced before trial court against ten accused. Dr. M.K Bhutyal died; Court below after hearing the arguments on question of charge on 16.7.2010 held prima facie case to proceed against accused Nos.4 to 9 u/s section 5(2) r/w 5 (1) (d) J&K PC Act r/w sections 161/467/468/471-120-B RPC, but discharged accused Nos.1 to 3 namely Dr. Abdul Maqjid, Govind Singh and Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma. 13. In the impugned order dated 16.07.2010, the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu further held that:— “Scope and sphere of consideration at the charge stage by now is well settled. To say in brief, court has to see as to whether on consideration of the material on the record of the case all the ingredients of the offence(s) the accused discharged with are made out and as to whether there is a reasonable ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence(s). If both these conditions are fulfilled, it would be said that there is a prima facie case and charge shall be framed. Court at the charge stage can appreciate and shift the material on record of the case only for this limited purpose and nothing more. But neither the probative value of the material brought on record nor the defence of the accused can be considered at this stage. As to whether there is a prima facie case and charge should be framed, Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v Som Nath Thappa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 has held:— “32. if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution have to be accepted as true at that stage....” Material on record of this case has been analyzed above without going into its probative value. There is nothing on the record of the case to support the allegations that the accused CMO (A-1) had called all the incumbents, or in particular the three fake incumbents, in his office or had himself checked their documents. Parentage of the incumbents were not given in the list and there is no material on record to show that the dates of birth of the three serving PTS were other than those shown against their names in the list of 26 incumbents. Above all there is no material to show that the list of the 26 incumbents or the documents allegedly furnished by the accused CMO vide his No. E-1/86 dated 17. 4. 1997 were received in the office of the DHS and that the regularization order in question i.e., Order no. ES-5/NG/97/3954 dated 25.4.97 has been issued on the basis of the said list or documents. Allegation of the involvement of A-l and A-2 in conspiracy with the accused DHS and the beneficiaries, therefore, is not well founded and is rather conjectural. I, thus, find no reasonable ground for presuming that they were so involved and hold that there is no prima facie case against them. Nevertheless, there is sufficient material on record, coming by way of the report of the team of doctors appointed by the DHS (supra) and statements of the w nesses, in support of the allegation that the four fake incumbents (A-6, A-7, A-8and A-9) who got regularized by order issued by the accused DHS were other than the PTS of the identical names but different parentage husband’s names actually working at Kudwal, Laswara, Kotla and Ratnal, sub-centers of Bishnah Block respectively. Also there is sufficient material on the record of the case to show that the order in question was issued on the basis of the list of 46 candidates submitted by the CMO. Jammu earlier in the year 1995. This list contained neither the parentage nor the husband’s name of any of the incumbents But the parentage husbands’ names of the four fake incumbents figure in the regularization order issued by the accused DHS. Foul play, whatsoever, thus seems to have been committed in the office of the accused DHS, Jammu, while issuing the order and the possibility of this having been done in connivance with the persons regularized certainly exists, Officials (A-4 and A-5) connected with the issuance of the order and the beneficiaries (A-6 to A-9) thus, have a prima facie case against them and are liable to be charged. The accused DHS would also have been similarly liable had he not passed away. Contention of A-5 and A-6 that parentage/ husbands’ name in the appointment orders are written on the basis of the list and documents furnished by accused-CMO is not sustainable for the reason as stated above. In so far as accused B.M.O. Bishnah, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma (A-3) is concerned, allegation against him is that he had vide his Order No.153 dated 26.5.1997 and Orders No.136 and 137 dated 21.5.1997 allowed four fake incumbents appointed by the DHS to join at their sub centers without verifying the fact that incumbents of identical names age, but different parentage were already working in those sub-centers. It is alleged further that he was well aware of the fact that the new appointees/incumbents never worked in these sub-centers, but he failed to take any action against the fake regularized incumbents and also failed to bring the matter to the notice of senior officers and continuously drew their pay. In context of allegation against A-3, it is important to note that the DHS had given the place of posting of all the four fake incumbents in the regularization order supra issued by him. While perusing the record of the case I could lay hand on only two orders, i.e., Order No.136 dated 21.5.97 as regards Preeto Devi wife of Amir Hussain and Order No.153 dated 26.5.97 as regards Sushma Devi wife of Bishan Dass allegedly passed by the A-3. While perusing the record of the case I could lay hand on only two orders, i.e., Order No.136 dated 21.5.97 as regards Preeto Devi wife of Amir Hussain and Order No.153 dated 26.5.97 as regards Sushma Devi wife of Bishan Dass allegedly passed by the A-3. These orders could be found in their respective files seized by the IO along with other record vide seizure memo dated 9.6.99. Relevant portion of one of these identical orders reads as:— “Smt. Sushma Devi w/o Sh. Bishan Dass is hereby directed to report Sub Centre Kudwal for further duties as Safaiwala.” Language of these orders, plain as it is, would show that they were in total consonance with the regularization order issued by the accused DHS so it cannot be said that they of their own had anything to do with the regularization of two persons or all the four persons. A-3 had simply directed them to report at the sub-centers allotted to them by the DHS. No ulterior motive on the part of A-3, therefore, can be attributed to. Insofar as the allegation that he was well aware of the fact that these four persons never worked in the said sub centers is concerned, there is nothing in the material on record of the case to show that A-3 could have detected this wrong at the time of issuing his orders. Charge cannot be framed on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. What is required is the material to verify the allegation. His failure to verity this fact, if it was required, does not tantamount criminal misconduct. I thus find no prima facie case against him too. In the result, I hold that there is prima facie case punishable under Sec. 120-B RPC read with sec. 5(2) J& K Prevention of Corruption Act against A-4 to A-9 besides offence punishable under Sec. 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) J & K Prevention of Corruption Act against A-4 and A-5 so charges against them are to be framed. There is, however no prima facie case against A-1, A-2 and A-3, so they are discharged.” 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter and law on the subject. 15. Law with regard to quashment of charge has now been well settled. In AIR 2014 SC 1106 in case titled Umesh Kumar Vs. There is, however no prima facie case against A-1, A-2 and A-3, so they are discharged.” 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter and law on the subject. 15. Law with regard to quashment of charge has now been well settled. In AIR 2014 SC 1106 in case titled Umesh Kumar Vs. State of AP, it is held as under:— (A) Code of criminal procedure –section 482 –instead of considering prima facie case-High court appreciating and weighing the materials on record –concluding that charge sheet could not have been filed against accused and further ,no charges could have been framed –virtually acting as an appellant court –approach illegal and erroneous. A Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated a similar view in CBI & Ors. v. Keshub Mahindraetc., AIR 2011 SC 2037 observing that when the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges “at that stage”. Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C. 16. In 2015 (9) SCC 294 in case titled The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, “Q’ Branch CID., Tirunelveli Range, Tamil Nadu Vs. Mariya Anton Vijay, it is held as under:— “85. The question as to how, in what manner and to what extent, the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code are exercised for quashing the registration of FIR/final report/charge sheet/complaint etc. are no more res integra and settled by several decisions of this Court. 86. One leading case on this question is Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and the other is S.B.Johari’s case (supra) apart from many others. 87. So far as the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is concerned, following proposition of law is laid down:— “102. are no more res integra and settled by several decisions of this Court. 86. One leading case on this question is Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and the other is S.B.Johari’s case (supra) apart from many others. 87. So far as the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is concerned, following proposition of law is laid down:— “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 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 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 FIR 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 FIR 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 FIR 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.” (88) As far as S.B. Johari (Supra) case is concerned, following proposition of law is laid down:— “4. In our view, it is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 , after considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the Court posed a question, whether at the stage of framing the charge, the trial court should marshal the materials on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial. The Court held that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the [pic]offence with which the accused could be charged. The court may peruse the records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 , Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 and held thus: (SCC p. 85, para 7) “From the above discussion it seems well settled that at the Sections 227- 228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.” (emphasis supplied) 5. .............................................................................................” 6. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.” (emphasis supplied) 5. .............................................................................................” 6. In our view the aforesaid exercise of appreciating the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge is wholly unjustified. The entire approach of the High Court appears to be as if the Court was deciding the case as to whether the accused are guilty or not..........................” 17. Keeping the aforementioned principles of law in mind and applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that Judge, while framing charge under section 269 of Cr.P.C. is obliged to scan the evidence collected during investigation for limited purpose for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused has committed offence as is alleged. For the purpose of framing of charge, therefore, the Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of said materials there is a reasonable probability of chance of accused being found guilty of the offence alleged. If the answer is in the affirmative, the judge will be at liberty to presume “that the accused has committed an offence”. Charge is first notice to the accused of an accusation made against him. It should be conveyed to him in sufficient clearness and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove and which case the accused is to meet. 18. In present case, there is ample of evidence that petitioner Miss Shanti Devi D/o Sh. Behari Lal hatched a criminal conspiracy with the then CMO Jammu Sh. Abdul Majid and Sh. Govind Singh Sr.Asstt of CMO office portrayed herself as real Shanti Devi W/o Chua Ram and managed to include her name in the list of 26 Safaiwala submitted by CMO Jammu to Director Health Services knowingly that she had never worked as Safaiwala in Sub-center Ratnal and thereby obtained undue benefit for herself. 19. Abdul Majid and Sh. Govind Singh Sr.Asstt of CMO office portrayed herself as real Shanti Devi W/o Chua Ram and managed to include her name in the list of 26 Safaiwala submitted by CMO Jammu to Director Health Services knowingly that she had never worked as Safaiwala in Sub-center Ratnal and thereby obtained undue benefit for herself. 19. Similarly there is sufficient material in file that accused persons/petitioners Sham Lal and Pawan Kumar, were posted as SO and Sr. Assistant of DHS, Jammu at that relevant time; Sham Lal SO after hatching criminal conspiracy illegally verified the regularization order of six beneficiaries by putting his initial, without verifying the record and confirmation of beneficiaries as to whether they were working as safiawala in block Bishnah from BMO Bishnah. There is also evidence that he deliberately avoided these verification and confirmation with criminal intention on some pecuniary consideration and to give undue benefits to beneficiaries, who in fact were not eligible to be regularized. Pawan Kumar Bakshi Sr. Assistant, also verified two order issued by DHS for regularization services of six beneficiaries after putting his initials on these order without verifying the record and without confirming the previous engagement of these six beneficiaries safiawala from BMO Bishnah; he deliberately avoided these aspects after hatching criminal conspiracy in order to give undue benefits to beneficiaries due to his own pecuniary benefits. 20. It has been proved during investigation that beneficiaries safiawala namely Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Behari Lal, Smt. Puro Devi W/o Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Preeto Devi W/o Sh Amir Hussain figuring in the list at S. No. 6, 11 and 12 in disguise of Smt. Preeto Devi W/o Sh. Kartar Chand, Smt Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Chua Ram and Smt. Puro Devi W/o Sh. Babu Ram fraudulently included in the regularization list despite the fact that above three incumbents never remained posted in their Sub-centers as Safaiwalas; the name of Sushma Devi W/o Bishan Dass was not sent, but she was also regularized. There is also sufficient evidence on record that these two accused in furtherance of common criminal conspiracy with other accused M. P. Gupta DHS without obtaining list of safaiwala working and without proper verification illegally issued regularization orders in respect of two persons namely Yash Paul s/o Girdhari Lal and Tarseem Lal S/o Dharam Chand in place of actual safaiwala namely Mst. Koshayla Devi and Santosh Kumari working part time safaiwala at sub centre Chack Murrary in block Bishnah. Both these Yash Paul s/o Girdhari Lal and Tarseem Lal S/o Dharam Chand were neither working as part time safaiwala nor their names were existing on rolls in Health Department. 21. Other grounds taken in the petitions are pertaining to factual defenses, which this court cannot consider in these petitions. Charges under exercise of power under 561-A Cr.P.C. can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The expression ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any court are intended to work out either when an innocent person is unjustifiablly subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie all merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold without allowing the material in support of it. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not function as court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. These powers cannot be used to stifle the legitimate prosecution. This is discretionary power vested in High Court to do substantial justice. High Court cannot examine the evidence as to whether charge for alleged offence is made out or not. 22. In this way, there is strong suspicion for presuming that the accused persons have committed an offence for which charges have been framed. The law cited by counsel for petitioners is not applicable as in Nitya Dharmanda @ K. Lenin and anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and anr. (supra), the law is pertaining to calling of documents under section 91 of Cr.P.C., when court finds that all material available before investigator was not made part of charge sheet, court can call those record while framing charge, if it has bearing effect on case. In Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar’s case, the court has held that if no explanation is given for delay in investigation for almost seventeen years, then it can be quashed. 23. In view of above, two petitions viz., CRR No.63/2010 filed by Shanti Devi; and CRMC No.248/2010 on behalf of Sham Lal and Pawan Kumar, seeking quashment of order of framing charges against them, are dismissed. 24. 23. In view of above, two petitions viz., CRR No.63/2010 filed by Shanti Devi; and CRMC No.248/2010 on behalf of Sham Lal and Pawan Kumar, seeking quashment of order of framing charges against them, are dismissed. 24. So far CRR No.9900005/2011 filed by State against accused Abdul Majid, then CMO Jammu, Govind Singh, then Sr Assistant in CMO Office, Jammu and Dr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma then BMO Bishnah is concerned, trial court has categorically held that allegations of the involvement of CMO and his Assistant is based on conjectures and is not well founded. This finding is not perverse in nature. Similarly court below has held that the allegations against Dr. Bharat Bhushan is that he allowed four fake incumbents to join at sub centre appointed by DHS, vide his order dated 153 dated 26.5.1997 and orders dated 136 and 137 dated 21.5.1997 without verifying the fact that incumbents of identical names but different parentage were already working in those sub centre; but Bharat Bhushan then BMO Bishnah has only passed the order in consonance to list of regularization order issued by DHS; on his own he has done nothing. So charge cannot be framed on the basis of conjectures and surmise that BMO was having knowledge that these persons have never worked as part time safaiwalas. This finding is also not perverse and incorrect. 25. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity of law and facts in order of court below while discharging the accused persons. This revision also stands dismissed. However, court has ample power to array these persons as accused, if during trial sufficient evidence comes forth against them.