Piara Lal vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Piara Lal has moved this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report dated 391987 registered at Police Station Kartarpur under Sections 409/467 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the averments contained in the FIR, which is the subjectmatter of challenge in the criminal miscellaneous when the scrutiny of accounts and record was carried out, it was found that the petitioner, who was working as a Cashier, had committed embezzlement of the funds to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000/. The FIR then continues to record the details of the amounts embezzled.

The petitioner is an employee of Punjab State Seeds Corporation and according to the charge framed by the trial Court, he has committed criminal breach of trust in his capacity as an employee of the Corporation, to the tune of Rs. 68,105.69.

According to the allegations made in the FIR, the offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code is made out. The fact, whether it was only temporary embezzlement, is a matter for consideration at the time of passing the sentence. With respect to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, I may quote the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, 1989 SC 1, as under :

"....It is true that jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. PC which saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the Trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon the exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the chargesheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and the resort to criminal proceedings, would in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not......"

In view of the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is for the trial Court to find out the truthfulness of the allegations made after recording evidence, and the petitioner can lead all his evidence available to him in that Court. I hereby dismiss the criminal miscellaneous.

Misc dismissed.