Bhupinder Pal vs State of Punjab

N.K. Kapoor, J.

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 30.4.1993 under sections 403, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar,

Kot Kapura.

Petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid first information report on the ground that the same has been lodged after inordinate and unexplained

delay of eight years. According to the petitioner, as per version in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have embezzled some amount in the year

198586 whereas the FIR has been registered in the year 1993 and that too without any explanation. Secondly, since the award dated 17.3.1992

has become final between the parties, the same allegation cannot be made basis for criminal prosecution.

Pursuant to the notice of motion issued by the Court, reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been stated that the FIR was lodged after

giving full time for consideration to the petitioner who, in fact, appeared along with his lawyer on some of the dates and later on seeing that

embezzlement is fully justified did not attend the Court of Arbitrator. In fact, the factum of embezzlement of amount of the Cooperative Society

came to light while audit of Society was being conducted. This is how the matter was reported to the Assistant Registrar who determined the

amount as an Arbitrator at Rs. 29,466/. The Assistant Registrar simultaneously sent a communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police for

filing an FIR on 11.1.1988.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR could not be registered till a liability has been fastened by an award

or decree of the Court. Since in the present case, the Assistant Registrar sent a communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police for filing of

the FIR on 11.1.1988 i.e. before the decision of the Arbitrator dated 27.6.1988, the same is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Reliance

was placed on the decision in case reported as Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) RCR 623.

There is a fallacy in the reasoning of the learned counsel for the petitioner when he states that the FIR was registered on 11.1.1988. Vide

communication dated 11.1.1988 a complaint had only been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police for investigation and necessary

action. The First Information Report is dated 30.4.1993 i.e. after the award made by the Arbitrator. Even as per above quoted authority, the

criminal proceedings could be launched after finalisation of surcharge proceedings by Arbitrator. Thus, this authority does not support the

contention of the petitioner.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR and so the proceedings

are liable to be quashed on this ground. Admittedly, the petitioner has been held to be liable for a sum of Rs. 29,466/. As per version given in the

FIR as well as before the Arbitrator, the petitioner has embezzled few bags of urea DAP etc valuing Rs. 29,466/ while in service. Admittedly, the

award passed against the petitioner has not been challenged by him by way of appeal or revision. The respondentSociety promptly intimated the

Senior Superintendent of Police vide communication dated 11.1.1988 as to the alleged embezzlement of goods by the petitioner who started

investigating the same. The first information report was registered on 30.4.1993. According to the investigating agency, the matter was examined

from all possible angles and so the delay stands explained. There is no denying the fact that there is some delay in filing the FIR. All the same, it

cannot be held that as and when there is some delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation ipso facto it furnishes a

good ground for quashing of the FIR. Each case has to be examined on its facts. In the present case, civil liability has already been determined vide

award Annexure P1 dated 17.3.1992. Whether the petitioner is guilty of criminal breach of trust or has committed any forgery or has forged any

document with intent to cheat is yet to be determined on the pending criminal proceedings.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner''s services stand terminated and so the present proceeding is

nothing but an attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Otherwise, as per award, it is a case of civil liability only. This too has no merit. The

petitioner is alleged to have embezzled few bags of urea DAP etc while in service. The matter is yet to be examined on the basis of evidence by the

trial Magistrate. Resultantly, I am of the view that no case for quashing the FIR is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.