Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 420 (HP)

Ravi Kant Chauhan v. State of H. P.

2025-03-21

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No.4/14, dated 24.05.2014, registered at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468, 471 , 120B of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC ”) and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (“in short P.C. Act”), against the petitioner and co-accused Kartar Chand and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was received by the Additional Director General of Police, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (“in short SV & ACB), Shimla (H.P.) regarding the misappropriation of government money worth Rs. 3,28,438/- (three lakhs twenty-eight thousand four hundred thirty eight). It was asserted that the Soil Conservation Department had sanctioned Rs. 5,20,000/- (five lakhs twenty thousand) for the construction of protection work in village Kholi Tehsil & District Kangra (H.P.). An amount of Rs. 3,28,438/- (three lakhs twenty-eight thousand four hundred thirty eight) was spent from 16 th June 2012 to 30 th June 2012 to oblige Kartar Chand. This work was carried out under the control and supervision of Kartar Chand, who was nominated as “Mate” by the Department. Kartar Chand constructed the wall to protect his house and property. He managed cement bags and misappropriated the money in connivance with the officials of the Department. The construction of the wall damaged the informant’s house. The masons shown to be working in the project had not worked. No muster roll/attendance register was prepared/supplied. The Department supplied 335 bags of cement, but the carriage charges were claimed for 453 bags. The carriage was approved @ Rs. 160/- per ton from Dehra to Kholi, whereas the cement was transported from Birta to Kholi. The police conducted a preliminary investigation and seized the record. It was found that no wall was constructed towards the house of Duni Chand Dakwal. Kartar Chand had drawn Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) as payment towards the wages of masons, but the masons said that they had not worked on the project, nor was any payment made to them. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The specimen signatures of the petitioner and Kartar Chand were taken for comparison. Kartar Chand had drawn Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) as payment towards the wages of masons, but the masons said that they had not worked on the project, nor was any payment made to them. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The specimen signatures of the petitioner and Kartar Chand were taken for comparison. The specimen signatures of the masons did not match the specimen signatures put on the voucher. The signatures of Kartar Chand and Ravi Kant were found on the bill. Hence, the police submitted the charge sheet before the Court. 3. Being aggrieved from filing the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. It was asserted that the amount of Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was paid, which should be recovered from Kartar Chand. This recommendation was accepted by the Principal Secretary (Home/Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary (Agriculture) to recover the amount. Kartar Chand deposited the amount. However, the FIR was registered contrary to the initial recommendation. It violates the recommendation of the Principal Secretary (Home/Vigilance). No material was found against the petitioner. The evidence of the handwriting expert is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner. He could not expect to know masons personally. The complaint was filed by the complainant against Kartar Chand and not against the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State by filing a reply reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the investigation showed that an amount of Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was not disbursed. No officer recommended the recovery of Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred twenty). It was found that a fake muster rolls/attendance register was prepared by the petitioner in connivance with Kartar Chand. This fact was also verified by the report issued by the handwriting expert. The FIR was registered on the direction of Vigilance Headquarters. It was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr. Aditya Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. 6. Mr. This fact was also verified by the report issued by the handwriting expert. The FIR was registered on the direction of Vigilance Headquarters. It was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr. Aditya Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. 6. Mr. Aditya Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, submitted that the Inquiry Officer had initially recommended the recovery of the amount. Kartar Chand deposited the amount, but the FIR was registered. There is no evidence against the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and subsequent proceedings be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (through CBI), Criminal Appeal No.1804 of 2012 decided on 09.11.2012 and Vigilance Manual in support of his submission. 7. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3, submitted that the investigation revealed the forgery of the documents. The petitioner had forged the signatures of five masons in connivance with Kartar Chand. He had also withdrawn Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty). This fact was verified by the report of the RFSL. There is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions given at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “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.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceeding can be quashed.” 10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185 wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : ( i ) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; ( iii ) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; ( v. ) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and ( vi ) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably ( State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer had recommended the deposit of the amount, and the Vigilance Department had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. Reliance was placed upon the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. This submission will not assist the petitioner. It was held by Kerala High Court in Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala , 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 1350 that the vigilance manual is not a statute and its violation does not affect the investigation. It was observed: “23. Reliance was placed upon the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. This submission will not assist the petitioner. It was held by Kerala High Court in Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala , 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 1350 that the vigilance manual is not a statute and its violation does not affect the investigation. It was observed: “23. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Clause 54 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual, submitted that the basic statements containing assets at the beginning of the check period, assets at the end of the check period, assets acquired by the officer and his family during the check period, income of the suspect officer and his family during the check period, expenditure of the suspect during the check period and likely savings of the suspect during the check period are to be prepared and incorporated in the reports. The Vigilance Manual is not a statute and has not been enacted by the Legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidelines of the Police officials concerned. The instructions in the Manual are only directory. Mere non-compliance with the instructions in the Manual, which are issued only for the guidance of the Detecting or Investigating Officers, would not vitiate the investigation. There may be some cases where non-compliance with the guidelines, which work as safeguards to avoid false implication, causes prejudice to the accused. In the present case, the Investigating Agency is in the process of collecting materials to ascertain whether the petitioner has acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income. There is nothing to show that the non-compliance of Clause 54 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau or any other clauses therein would cause prejudice to the petitioner in any way.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the present case, the Vigilance Department has the authority to investigate a cognisable offence. Therefore, the investigation and the subsequent proceedings would not become bad because initially the Inquiry Officer had recommended the deposit of the amount. 14. It was submitted that no case was made out against the petitioner because no person had benefited. This submission cannot be accepted. The copy of the charge sheet shows that an amount of Rs. 28,820/-(twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was misappropriated by preparing the forged documents. 14. It was submitted that no case was made out against the petitioner because no person had benefited. This submission cannot be accepted. The copy of the charge sheet shows that an amount of Rs. 28,820/-(twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was misappropriated by preparing the forged documents. The persons whose signatures were shown to have been put in the bills denied their signatures or the receipt of any amount. Therefore, there was prima-facie misappropriation of the government amount sanctioned for a particular purpose, and the submission that the contents of the FIR and charge sheet do not disclose the commission of a cognisable offence is not acceptable. 15. The judgment in C.K. Jaffer Sharief (supra) will not help the petitioner because the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had found that the petitioner had sent some persons to London who had assisted the petitioner in the discharge of his duties. Therefore, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was no abuse of the position of the Public Servant to obtain valuable things or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. In the present case, the amount was drawn from the Government Treasury on the basis of the forged signatures. The prosecution has specifically asserted that this amount was misappropriated by the petitioner in connivance with Kartar Chand. These allegations show that the petitioner and Kartar Chand had benefited from the drawing of the money, and no advantage can be derived from the cited judgment. 16. The allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet show the commission of cognisable offences. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed. 17. No other point was urged. 18. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.