Mangilal Borewal vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 405/2009, for the offence punishable under Sections 477(A), 409, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sheopur. Brief facts of the petition are that on 14.10.2009, District Election Officer, Sheopur has made a written complaint to the effect that the petitioner Mangilal Borewal the then Deputy Collector and other co-accused R.K. Sharma and Jugal Kishore who were posted at District Election Office, Branch Sheopur, from 01.05.2004 to 01.08.2006, the petitioner and the co-accused have manipulated the cash book by reducing the running balance and committed embezzlement of Rs. 14,32,095/-. On the basis of the report Crime No. 405/2009 for the offence punishable u/s 477(A), 409, 420, 467, 471 & 120-B of IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved directly or indirectly in the alleged commission of offence. Co-accused R.K. Sharma and Jugal Kishore Raikwar were responsible for maintaining the cash book. The cash book was being verified by Babulal Arya and after finding the entries correct the note regarding verification was being made. Thereafter cash book was presented before the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner used to put his signature. Thus, petitioner is not involved at all in the alleged act of embezzlement. Co-accused R.K. Sharma was also posted at Janpad Panchayat Roun, District Bhind as Accountant prior to his posting at Sheopur. R.K. Sharma has also committed similar offence at Bhind and the case under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC was registered against R.K. Sharma. Prima facie, case is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.

The learned Panel Lawyer submits that the report has been lodged after holding an enquiry, therefore, there is no reason for quashing the FIR.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of Kaifiyat report, it appears that complainant Babulal, Election Supervisor of District Election Office, Sheopur has asked the Office of Collectorate and Election Officer, Sheopur, to submit a written complaint stating that some irregularities have been found in the cash book pertaining to the year 2004-05 of District Election Office, Sheopur, therefore, an enquiry was directed by the Government. The audit report of Accountant General and the Accounts Officer and Chief Election Officer of M.P. has found that M.L. Borewal, the then Joint Collector, R.K. Sharma Accountant and Jugal Kishore Raikarwar, Assistant Grade-II posted in Branch of Election Office have embezzled amount of Rs. 14,32,095/- by overwriting in the cash book and the FIR to this effect has been directed to be lodged, hence the offence has been registered.

The investigation into a cognizable offence is a statutory right of the police under Sections 154, 156 of Cr.P.C. and so long as Investigation Officer is making investigation independently it is not within the powers of High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere with the investigation. The manner and method of investigation are left entirely to Police Officer.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori, has observed as under:-

The High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, u/s 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.

In M.M.T.C., Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., this Court held as follows: (SCC p, 236)

The law is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage the Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, in para 14 has observed as under:-

It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal, it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no interference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for exercise of extra ordinary power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., of this Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.