Dr. Updesh vs State of Rajasthan

Harbans Lal, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 111/99 P.S.ACB, Jaipur, District O.P., C.B., Bikaner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and (2) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called in short, ''the Act'') and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC as against the petitioner.

The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that in preliminary inquiry No.64/94 conducted by the Add. S.P., Anti-Corruption Bureau, it was found that the State Agricultural University, Bikaner through its order No. 1330-40 dated 24.9.96 issued a sanction for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for publication of the manual in favour of Dean, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science College, Bikaner. The then Dean, Shri S.S.Sharma issued a letter No.3000 dated 17.3.97 and ordered to supply stationary to the firm, Sasta Stationary Bhandar, Bikaner to get the manual printed and for the purpose of printing of manual, the proforma invoices No.963/96, 964/96 and 965/96 dated 28.3.97 were obtained from M/s.Agro-Tech Computers, Bikaner through letter No.3153 dated 27.3.97. The petitioner is the proprietor of the printing firm. It was further found that Shri S.S.Sharma corrected and retotalled the amount of proforma invoices No.963/96 and 964/96 issued by the firm M/s.Agro-Tech Computers, Bikaner and signed them. Shri K.M. Sharma, Head of the Department of Microbiology without receiving the manuals verified the quality and quantity of both proforma invoices and Shri S.S.Sharma himself in his capacity of Head of the Department of gynaecology without receiving the manuals verified the quality and quantity regarding remaining proforma invoice No.965/96 and got the receipt of manual entered in the stock register of the department and forwarded the bill and all the three proforma invoices to the account section of the college while uptil then no manual was printed and received by the college. On the basis of the aforesaid bills and proforma invoices account section prepared FVC bills No.DS/30 1C dated 31.3.97 for an amount of Rs.66,382 in the name of firm M/s.Agro-Tech Computer, Bikaner which was later cancelled by him after the complaint was received in this regard. Thus finding the offences under sections 13(1)(c)(d) and (2) read with Section 15 of the Act and Section 420 and 120-B IPC sent a written report to the SP(1) ACB Jaipur whereupon this FIR was registered and the investigation was handed over to the Addl.SP ACB, Bikaner and the investigation in the matter is said to be pending for the last about four years.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence is even prima facie disclosed from the FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner is not in any way connected with the alleged crimes. There is also no material to show that he was directly or indirectly a party to the alleged criminal conspiracy. The petitioner and his firm has not been paid any amount nor any other for printing of the manuals has been placed with him and he has not printed any manuals. Therefore, to permit to continue the investigation of the case against him tantamounts to abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the First Information Report as against him deserves to be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has simply opposed the prayer but he could not point out from the investigation file as to how the petitioner can be said to be even prima facie involved in the commission of the alleged offences.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the case diary.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that three proforma invoices No.963/96, 964/96 and 965/96 all dated 28.3.97 were obtained from his firm M/s.Agro-Tech Computers, Bikaner through letter No.3153-57 dated 27.3.97. The issuance of these three proforma invoices without anything more on record cannot and does not indicate that he was in any way a party to the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by the public servant of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science College, Bikaner for defalcating the government funds or for that matter committing the offence of cheating.

Admittedly, the petitioner has neither been given any order for printing of the manuals nor he has printed any manuals nor he has been paid any amount on account of the printing of the manuals. Even the corrections alleged to be made in two proforma invoices Nos.963/96 and 964/96 are allegedly made by Shri S.S.Sharma and the same have been signed by him. Nothing has come on record in the investigation so far made to connect the petitioner with the alleged crimes. No offence whatsoever is even prima facie disclosed from the facts and allegations mentioned in the FIR and the materials collected in support thereof during the investigation against the petitioner, although, the investigations is said to be pending for over four years. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down in the case of "State of Haryana Vs. Vs. Bhajan Lal" reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, it appears to be a fit case for quashing of FIR as against the petitioner because continuation of investigation as against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court.

In the result, this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the FIR No.111/99 P.S.ACB, Jaipur, as against the petitioner only is hereby quashed.