R.K.Ranga vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Shri R.K. Ranga, an I.A.S. Officer posted as Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office at Chandigarh, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 10/R dated 6.1.1997 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak.

According to the petitioner, he is an I.A.S. Officer of 1976 batch and has been allocated to the State of Haryana. The aforesaid FIR has been registered against him and others under Section 3(i)(b) of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies Act, 1980, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 109, 199, 200 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The quashment of the said FIR is being sought by the petitioner by alleging that even if all the allegations, as levelled in the FIR, are accepted as correct ex facie, those allegations do not constitute any offence at all under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or under the various sections for which the case has been registered. According to the petitioner the Police wanted to register a case against him for extraneous reasons. The FIR was registered only to be utilised for invoking the Police powers for a fishing expedition and not to investigate any offence which could be alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines ''Cheating'', have also not been prima facie attracted. The allegations of the FIR are based on hearsay and rumors, which is no evidence in the eyes of law. The petitioner belongs to a political family and is married to the daughter of late Shri Dalbir Singh, who was a Minister in the Central Government and was also the President of the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee. The sisterinlaw of the petitioner had been a Minister of State in the Union Council of Ministers and is presently a sitting Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), having been returned on the Congress ticket from Sirsa. The present Government of Haryana is politically opposed to late Shri Dalbir Singh and the present FIR is the result of political enmity between the family of the petitioner and that of the present administrators of the Government of Haryana. Since the Haryana Government was annoyed with the petitioner on account of the variation in the policy of the FCI and the one prepared by the State Government, therefore, the petitioner has been implicated in the said FIR. The allotment of wheat which was to be made by a Member Committee comprising Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I. Haryana Region an Chairman, and Director Food & Supplies, Haryana, Joint Manager (Finance & Account) as members, was constituted to decide about the allotment of wheat. The applications from prospective buyers were invited at District level by giving wide publicity through leading dailies circulated in Haryana. After receipt of applications, a policy decision about allotment of wheat to various categories viz. Chakkis, traders and roller flour mills, was taken which was communicated to the District Offices for necessary compliance. The State Government wanted that the allotment of wheat should be through the Deputy Commission, whereas the anxiety of the petitioner was to abide by the directions of the F.C.I. The political heads of the State Government were not satisfied with the style of decisions taken by the petitioner, and, therefore, a false FIR has been recorded against the petitioner and others for those alleged offences which possibly could not be committed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been made a scapegoat and an attempt has been made to teach him a lesson for not being able to work as per the wishes of the State Government. The allegations in the FIR are vague so as to constitute any offence at the level of an officer. The allegation, in fact, have been irresponsibly made in a general term and no the basis of casual allegations, no investigation can be conducted.

Before I further deal with the present petition, I may first refer to the document (Annexure P1), which is a letter written by Shri Narain Prasad Goel to the S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, on the basis of which the case was registered. Shri Narain Prasad Goel stated in his complaint that he earlier made a written complaint on 12.9.1996 to the higher authorities and to the Minister to the effect that under the Open Sale Scheme, wheat is allotted to the Haryana Government by the Government of India. In Haryana this wheat is distributed as per the directions of Shri R.K. Ranga, I.A.S., Senior Regional Manger, F.C.I., Chandigarh (Petitioners). Shri Ranga had distributed almost 70% and 80% of total wheat to the Roller Flour Mills alone. It is also rumored that the wheat was allotted through agent Shri Om Narain, only to their agents on the payment of Rs. 30/ per bag. Since the wheat was allotted only to their agents, therefore, wheat could not be given to the traders for the month of August 1996, whereas the traders sell wheat to the ordinary consumers. For this reason the FCI had to extend the date for sale of wheat upto September 15. The complainant has further alleged in his application that he has also learnt that Shri Ranga created three categories, viz. Flour Mills, Atta Chakkis and Traders and thereby deprived the traders of their basic rights, which is against the law altogether. The complainant is also a trader in wheat holding a licence and he had deposited a demand draft for the purchase of 200 bags of wheat on 29.8.1996 with the F.C.I., Rohtak, under the Open Market Scheme. He along with Shri Rajender Kumar Bansal, Secretary of the Mandi, handed over the draft to Shri Om Narain Sharma, who is working as AGII in the FCI Rohtak, but Shri Sharma demanded a bribe of Rs. 30/ per bag and informed that the demand was being made on the instructions of Shri Ranga (petitioner). The complainant refused to give the bribe. Shri Om Narain Sharma refused to accept the draft and stated in clear words that he would not accept any draft without payment of Rs. 30/ per bag and he asked the complainant to go out of his office. The complainant again purchased a pay order for a sum of Rs. 28.750/, and he again approached Shri Om Narain Sharma, AGII, who again reiterated "you make complaints against us" and he refused to accept the draft. The complainant alleged that he was fed up with the behaviour of Shri Om Narain Sharma. Ultimately, he sold his draft to M/s. Siri Chand Ram Chander, and he also came to know later on that this firm was also not allotted full wheat on account of the nonpayment of the bribe. The complainant further states that he has learnt that in October 5000 bags of wheat were allotted at the rate of Rs. 490/ per quintal to a flour mill which had closed its business for the last 2/3 years. Similarly, during the month of November, the same firm was released wheat under the Open Market Sale Scheme. The said firm sells wheat at Delhi and when it was transporting the wheat to Delhi, the wheat was detained by the Sales Tax Authorities on 29.11.1996 along with the goods receipt. The owner of the mill made a lot of money in one day be selling the wheat in black market. The firm which had already closed it business for the last 2/3 years furnished a false affidavit and applied for the allotment of the wheat under the Open Market Scheme. Similarly, there are numerous agents, who in collusion with the employees and authorities are defeating the Open Market Sale. Scheme and selling the wheat in the black market and the they earn profit. These persons are committing serious offence by deceiving the Government and by ensuring that the wheat could not reach the ordinary consumer. There is a great resentment on this account in the general public. The complainant had lodged many complaints which were published in the newspapers. On 6.1.1979 he felt assured through Jansatta that the grievances of ordinary consumers and traders would be heard. With the above allegations Shri Narain Prasad Goel finally made a prayer for the registration of the case against all the employees/authorities/traders who are involved in the scandal, so that the ordinary consumer is able to get relief.

Need not to mention here that vide my separate order of even date, I am also disposing of an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C., which had been filed by present petitioner Shri R.K. Ranga. While dealing with that file, further role, with had been attributed to the present petitioner, is that Shri Ranga did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the Open Market Sale Scheme and the guidelines issued by he FCI; rather he sent telephonic massages to the staff posted at Rohtak for allotting a huge quantity of wheat to some desired persons without making any verification of their genuineness, and thus he cheated the Food Corporation of India as well as the Public in general and small traders in connivance with one Shri A.K. Sharma, partner of M/s. Laxmi Engineering Works and Allied Industries. Shri Sharma has also given in writing to the authorities that the concern M/s. Laxmi Engineering Works and Allied Industries was not functioning for the last 2/3 years. In spite of the fact that this fact was brought to the notice of Shri R.K. Ranga, he ordered for the allotment of wheat running to 5,000 qunitals on telephone at the rate of Rs. 490/ per quintal. Said wheat was sold to one Rajesh Kumar, who is also an accused of this FIR, at the rate of Rs. 545/ per quanital. Said Shri Rajesh Kumar sold wheat at Delhi at the rate of Rs. 631/ per quintal. The wheat, in fact, was supposed to be sold in the form of wheat products, such as Atta, Suzi and Maida. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that one Shri Daya Nand, who is also rebelled as an accused in this case, was favoured by Shri R.K. Ranga by accepting his application on 17th November, 1996, in his office at Chandigarh, from where the allotted 2000 quintals of wheat to this person. This wheat was also lifted by Rajesh. In this manner several instances came to the notice of the Investigating Agency, prima facie showing the involvement of the petitioner.

I am disposing of this petition at the motion stage itself as I am of the considered opinion that the respondents should not be even called upon.

I have heard Shri H.L. Sibal Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Reeta Kohli, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Present is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lays down as follows :

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

A perusal of the above provision would show that this section has conferred an inherent jurisdiction on this Court so that this may be exercised when necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of this, these powers can be invoked only when there is a justification for interference and when the allegations of the FIR do not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The scope of the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C., was considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604 , and their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to give the following categories of cases by way of illustration, wherein such powers could be exercised either to prevent the 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 guidelines or rigid formulae to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases where such power should be exercised :

"(1) 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 entirity do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation 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.

(3) 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.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which on prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.

(6) 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 institution and continuance of the proceeding 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.

(7) 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.

Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified."

The petitioner wants to bring his case under categories Nos. (1), (5) and (7) of the said guidelines. In this very judgment in para No. 108 the Hon''ble Supreme Court gave a note of caution that the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

At this juncture I have to see the allegations of the complaint as well as the prima facie material on which the prosecution is banking upon to proceed against the petitioner. The complainant in this case is a trader and he could not possibly be in possession of the entire record of the Department as to how the distribution of the wheat was going on under Open Market Scheme. He could only gather the information on derived knowledge. Being a registered trader, a different person i.e. Shri Om Narain, AGII, made a demand of bribe by specifically stating that he was doing so under the instructions of the present petitioner. The complainant has quoted certain instances how the scheme of the sale of the wheat in the open market is being flouted with the active connivance of the staff/authorities. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the object of the scheme was that the wheat released to the District of Rohtak should go to the hands of the actual consumers, so that the price of the atta may not rise in the open market. The allegations of the prosecution further are that wheat ultimately went to the hands of Roller Mills which did not grind the wheat; rather it was given to the agents who took the benefit of artificial scarcity and made an attempt to smuggle the wheat to Delhi and others States. Whether all this thing has been done in connivance with the petitioner and with his conspiracy, these allegations are yet to be inquired into by the Investigating Agency. The point for determination is whether in the above citation it can be said that the allegations against the petitioner are absurd, oppressive or that these allegations have been levelled just to take political revenge. All these matters are supposed to be inquired by the Investigation Agency. It is the prerogative of the agency to look into the allegations and to collect the material. The above allegations to the mind of this Court are neither absurd nor oppressive. It cannot be said that for the Investigating Agency there were not valid premises from which the investigation could not be conducted. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, JT 1995(3) SC 166, after referring to State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme court reiterated that the Courts are not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint on the basis of evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court also has made a dispassionate study with regard to the allegations of the complainant and some of the material collected by the Investigating Agency. If the petitioner is prima facie connected with the commission of the crime and it is established that he did undue favour in favour of certain traders who were not in existence or who were not genuine in the trade of wheat, the FIR cannot be quashed visavis the petitioner. His culpability or otherwise has to be investigated. By no stretch of imagination this Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner in being made a scapegoat by the political boses. The granting of the prayer of the petitioner would tantamount to scuttling of the investigation itself and the power of the Investigating Agency and this cannot be the object of Section 482, Cr.P.C. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the allegations of the FIR are inherently absurd and improbable and that the investigation is uncalled for. At this moment I am to be guided by the allegations of the prosecution and the material which had been collected during the course of investigation.

The effort on the part of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that prima facie no offence is made out for which the case has been registered. He has also rather invited my attention to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who earlier declined in the bail application of the petitioner under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel Shri Sibal also took the pains when he invited my attention to the correspondence which went between the Government and the petitioner as well as between the petitioner and his Head Office at Delhi, in order to show the bona fides on the part of the Shri R.K. Ranga. All these aspects would also be seen by the Investigating Agency whether the petitioner has any role to play or not. One thing, however, is quite discernible in the present case that wheat, in fact has not gone to the right hands. If the petitioner did not perform his duties intentionally rather he wanted to show favour to somebody, such action can be investigated under the other provisions of the law of the land. In order to succeed in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has to bring his the case within the ambit of the verdict laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (supra). These principles of law have also been reiterated in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995(3) RCR 700 : JT 1995(7) SC 299.

In the final analysis of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to bring his case in any of the categories of the cases dealt in category Nos. (1), (5) or (7) of the guidelines given in the case law titled State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 382 (supra).

This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.