Chandrashekhar Khare vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred for quashment of FIR bearing No.216/2017 as well as the entire charge sheet filed

against the petitioner by the Police of Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420

of IPC.

The impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of written complaint filed by one P. K. Patel, Senior Agriculture

Development Officer, Malkharoda on 09.01.2017 before the Police Station Malkharoda alleging that the petitioner committed cheating with the

Department by working in two different departments at the same time during the period from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 and was drawing salary from

both the departments. After receiving the complaint, the concerned Police Station investigated the matter and registered the aforesaid crime against

the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2018. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Trial Court,

Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 24.10.2018 passed in MCRC No.6906/2018.

The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, was appointed as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer under Senior Agriculture

Development Officer, Malkharoda, Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 03.07.2012, pursuant to which he joined on the said post on 07.12.2012. The

petitioner had also applied for the post of Senior Research Fellow, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur and upon his selection, vide order

dated 29.11.2012, the petitioner was temporarily engaged as Senior Research Fellow under NICRA (National Initiative on Climate Resilient

Agriculture). The petitioner joined his duties on 03.12.2012. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was working as Senior

Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dantewada from 03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda from

07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 at the same time and was also drawing salary for both the posts.

Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed the act of cheating or defrauding the Department

and has not benefited himself with any monetary gain. True it is that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan

Kendra, Dantewada from 03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 at the

same time and was also drawing salary for both the posts, but during the aforesaid period, the petitioner gave/sent his resignation on three occasions

vide letters dated 01.01.2013, 04.10.2014 & 25.05.2015 (part of Annexure-A/2) before the concerned Department i.e. Senior Agriculture Officer,

Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, but none of them was accepted. The petitioner also complied the notice received from the Department dated

06.04.2016 and returned the amount which was said to be obtained/drew by the petitioner and after paying the amount of Rs.8359/-, which was

received by the petitioner, the Senior Agriculture Development Officer on 26.05.2015 issued No Dues Certificate certifying that no amount is due

against the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner only joined as Senior Research Fellow at Dantewada at Krishi Vigyan Kendra,

Dantewada for which he was receiving scholarship and not salary and thereafter he was appointed as Farm Manager at Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishvidyalaya on 09.10.2014 and when the petitioner came to know about the fact that inadvertently, he was drawing salary from the two

departments, he returned the amount of Rs.59,805/- through DD/cheque, State Bank of India. She next submits that the impugned FIR is delayed by

more than 4 years and it is only the result of mall-intention, which was pre-planned by the higher officials of the petitioner, as earlier the petitioner has

got registered a complaint against Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal, who were the higher officials of the petitioner, and the crime was

registered against them. Subsequently, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 13 (1)

(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in ST No.234/2018 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4-4 years. Thus, it is clear

that the present is a counter-blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against his higher officials i.e. Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal.

The petitioner is innocent and some employees and officers including the complainant P. K. Patel, Upendramani Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal

hatched conspiracy to first extract money illegally from the petitioner when he made application for resignation and then false complaint has been

lodged against the petitioner just in order to save their skin. Therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner

is liable to be quashed and the petition be allowed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Harishkumar Balchandra Rajput vs State of Gujarat 2021

CRLJ 4109 : AIR Online 2021 Guj 1079, Virendra Kumar and another vs State of U.P. and another Application under Section 482 No.4951/2003 and

Dhanpat Kumar and others vs State of Bihar and another Cr. Misc. No.13347/2015.

Mr. Uddhav Sharma, learned State counsel, opposes the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR has

been registered against the petitioner only after receiving a complaint and after due investigation, a prima facie case was found against the petitioner,

thereafter the petitioner was arrested and the charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has filed various documents along with this petition. Annexure-A/2 contains resignation letters written by the petitioner. The letter

dated 01.01.2013 was addressed to Varishth Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, whereby the petitioner showing his inability

to continue on the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Sonadula, District Janjgir-Champa requested that his resignation may kindly be

accepted. Again the petitioner filed letter dated 04.10.2014 before Anuvibhagiya Krishi Adhikari, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa for resignation from

his post. Copy of this letter was also addressed to Sambhagiya Sanyukt Sanchalak Krishi, Bilaspur, Up Sanchalak, Krishi, Janjgir and Varishth Krishi

Vikas Adhikari, Malkharoda. Another letter was written on 25.05.2015 addressing Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-

Champa for his resignation. Thereafter on 06.04.2016, the letter was sent to the petitioner by the Office of Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Block

Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, which states as under:-

Annexure-A/3 contains copy of bank statements, whereby amount of Rs.59,805/- through DD/cheque dated 26.05.2015 and amount of Rs.8,359/-

through DD/cheque dated 12.04.2016 was deposited by the petitioner with the Department. Annexure-A/4 contains No Dues Certificate, wherein it

was certified that no outstanding amount is due against the petitioner till 26.05.2015, which states as under:-

Annexure-A/4 also contains a certificate issued by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, wherein it was

informed that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, which states as under:-

Annexure-A/5 is the letter dated 23.08.2016, which is an enquiry report and was addressed to the Director, Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur by the

Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which states as under:-

Thereafter, the written complaint was filed against the petitioner by one P. K. Patel before the Police Station, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa on

07.11.2017.

It is clear from all the documents that after issuing a No Dues Certificate, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on the basis of the

enquiry, the FIR was registered against him and he was arrested on 19.06.2018. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Trial

Court, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 24.10.2018 in MCRC No.6906/2018. On perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is revealed that earlier, the petitioner filed a complaint

against Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal on 01.03.2016, who were the higher officials of the petitioner, alleging that both the accused

persons demanded Rs.3 Lakhs as bribe and accepted Rs.40,000/- as a bribe and threatened the petitioner that criminal proceedings would be initiated

against him. Thereafter the trap proceedings were initiated against the accused and the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 34 of

IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and subsequently they were convicted

by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 8th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in ST No.234/2018 and were sentenced to

undergo RI for 4-4 years.

In the matter of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation:-

8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

following categories of cases are given 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 guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exer-cised:

(a) 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 ac cused;

(b) 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 investi-gation 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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 institu- tion 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;

(g) 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.â€​

In order to attract Section 420 of IPC, essential ingredients are (i) cheating (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any

valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and mens rea of accused at the time

of making inducement which act of omission.

In the matter of Dr. Vimla vs Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the meaning of expression 'fraud'. The

expression 'fraud' involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss i.e. deprivation of

property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or

such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to

the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second

condition is satisfied.

Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite clear from the documents filed by the petitioner that the

allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dantewada from

03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 at the same time and was also

drawing salary for both the posts. It is pertinent to mention here that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner on three occasions gave his resignation

letters to the Department, but one of them was accepted. Subsequently, the Competent Authority gave No Dues Certificate vide Annexure-A/4 dated

26.05.2015 before the preliminary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is also to be taken note that earlier the petitioner had filed complaint

against his higher officials i.e. Upendramani Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal regarding bribery, pursuant to which crime was registered against them.

Subsequently, they were convicted by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 8th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in ST

No.234/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 and were sentenced to undergo RI for 4-4 years. Thus, the present case seems to be the counter-blast to the complaint filed

by the petitioner against his higher officials. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where inherent powers of the Court under

Section 482 of CrPC would be exercised in favour of the petitioner for securing the ends of justice.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.216/2017 and the entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner by the Police of Police

Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC and the proceeding, if any, initiated in

pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.