Vimal Kumar Yadav vs State Of MP

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of First Information Report registered at Police Station Pohri, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.142/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273, 34 of IPC.

The facts leading to filing of present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Salesman in Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Pohari, District Shivpuri on 19/1/1986, thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Samiti Prabandhak on 15/6/1988. Since then, the petitioner is discharging his duty with utmost satisfaction to his superiors. The aforesaid Society is a Primary Cooperative Society registered under Section 9 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act of 1960 (for brevity "the Act of 1960"), to which the work of procurement of Gram (chana), Lentil (Masoor) and Mustard Seeds (sarson) during Rabi Procurement Year 2020-21 has been assigned by declaring it as purchasing center. There are two centers intact with the respondent-Society in which Bhatnavar Society was nominated as one of sub-center and discharging the duty. It was authorized to implement the welfare scheme introduced by the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 27/4/2020, Administrator, Primary Cooperative Society Ltd., Pohri had handed over the charge of both the Societies to the petitioner to discharge his duties and function of Samiti Prabandhak and accordingly appointed as Center In-charge to implement the aforesaid scheme. The petitioner was discharging his duties as Center In-charge with full devotion but all of a sudden in order to procure work more convenient, one Shri Dinesh Verma, Salesman of Primary Society, Pohari has been assigned the duty as Center In-charge at Bhatnavar Society by order dated 22/5/2020. Meaning thereby, w.e.f 22/5/2020, the petitioner never remained In-charge of Procurement Center Bhatnavar, when incident was allegedly happened.

An inspection had been carried out on 2/6/2020 at 9 O'clock by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pohari in the godown of the Bhatnavar Center, where aforesaid Dinesh Verma was posted as Center In-charge but with a view to drag the petitioner, false case has been registered against the petitioner on 3/6/2020. On the basis of such false First Information Report, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and charge of Society Manager has been ordered to be handed over to one Shri Raghunandan Shrivastava.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before registration of FIR and passing of impugned order, neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any statutory provisions of the Sewa Niyam 2013 has been followed and contrary to the rules of Sewa Niyam 2013, the petitioner was placed under suspension arbitrarily under the political influence. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR registered at Crime No.0142/2020 and its consequential proceedings.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that challan has been filed. On the basis of evidence produced before the trial Court, the trial Court will decide as to whether alleged offences are proved or not? There are four criminal cases against the present petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

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

In the present  case, in the memo of the petition, the petitioner has declared as under:

"The petitioner declaration that he has previously filed Writ Petition No.8341/2020 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the common suspension order and FIR wherein an order dt. 17-06-2020 has been passed granting liberty to file Departmental Appeal."

On perusal of the order dated 17/6/2020 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8341/2020, it is clear that the petitioner has already raised the same issue and sought for the same relief for quashment of impugned FIR in the Writ Petition and learned writ Court has considered all the facts taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel and by passing detailed order dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the FIR lodged against the petitioner cannot be quashed despite the petitioner has again filed this petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking same relief as sought for in the Writ Petition.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 89, has held as under:

"2. The High Court has, however, not confined its scrutiny to the averments contained in the first information report but has traversed beyond and examined the case in the light of the contentions put forth by the respondents in their petition under Section 482 CrPC. By indulgence in such exercise the High Court has come to the conclusion that the second respondent Cooperative Society cannot be termed a dealer of the alleged adulterated fertilizer distributed to its members because there was no sale involved in the transaction, that for the same reason the second respondent Society was not bound to obtain a Registration Certificate for selling fertilizer and furthermore the alleged sale of adulterated fertilizer was itself open to serious doubt because of conflicting analysis reports issued by the Chemical Analyst regarding the fertilizer and hence the emergent position is that the first information report does not disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Thus what the High Court has done is to go far beyond the contents of the first information report and enter into a discussion on the merits of the case before the investigating agency had conducted investigation and collected evidence."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 has held as under:

The scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge-sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. A number of decisions have been rendered by this Court on the aforesaid issue wherein the law relating to quashing of a complaint has been succinctly laid down.

"5. ... In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi it was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations [made] in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of the Magistrate for issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: (SCC p. 741, para 5) '(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.'

In Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishnaiah it was held by this Court that: (SCC p. 455, para 5)"

In a quashing proceeding, the High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint petition, if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence." In the said decision this Court refused the prayer for quashing of the complaint on the ground that there were sufficient allegations in the complaint to make out a case that the accused persons were responsible for the management and conduct of the firm and, therefore, the extent of their liability could be and should be established during trial.

In MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi it was held that when on the allegation made in the complaint, a clear case was made out against all the respondents (the accused persons), the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence.

In MCD this Court observed as follows in para 8: (SCC p. 5)

"8. Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when the High Court acting under the provisions of Section 482 should exercise the inherent power insofar as quashing of criminal proceedings are concerned. This matter was gone into in greater detail in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi where the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of the present Code was considered and while laying down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed this Court observed as follows: [SCC p.741, para 5 : SCC (Cri) pp. 511-12]

'5. ... Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:

(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.

The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.' "

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under:

"26. This further raises a question as to the wrongs which become actionable in accordance with law. It may be purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong as also a criminal offence constituting both on the same set of facts. But if the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent or original jurisdiction. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. this Court took the similar view and upheld the order of the High Court declining to quash the criminal proceedings because a civil contract between the parties was pending."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 594 has held as under :

The High Court has not recorded the finding that if the contents of the FIR registered against the respondent are taken on its face value, they do not disclose the cognizable offence and thus, the FIR was liable to be quashed. Rather it has been quashed merely on technical ground that the copy of the said FIR after being lodged had not been given to the informant. The judgment impugned herein is required to be examined as to whether giving the copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory and if not what is the prejudice caused to the respondent-accused as the informant has not raised the grievance of non-supply of the copy of the FIR nor has it been the case of the respondent that he sought the copy of the FIR and was not given.

The issue also requires to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. Thus, unless in a given situation, the aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or injustice, some infraction of law would not vitiate the order/enquiry/result. In judging a question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities. (Vide: Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab National Bank.)."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 616, has held as under:

"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi.] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora.]."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, has held as under :

"17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition.

Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Ravi Kumar v. State, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 568 has held as under:

"24. Exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither proper nor permissible for the Court to lay down any straitjacket formula for regulating the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

"25.Power under Section 482 CrPC might be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, but only when, the allegations, even if true, would not constitute an offence and/or were frivolous and vexatious on their face.

"26. Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint.

Reference may be made to the decision of this Court, inter alia, in State of Punjab v. Subhash Kumar and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary."

On perusal of the available documents on record, it is apparent that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the prosecution witnesses have specifically made allegations against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner was not In-charge. It might be that the charge had been handed over by the petitioner to some other person on 22/5/2020 but only on this ground, the alleged charges leveled against the petitioner cannot be washed out. The present case is registered under Sections 420, 272, 273, 34 of IPC. Even otherwise this Court is not inclined to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the Investigating Agency to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction, in the present petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed the petition of the petitioner seeking same relief, and looking to the offences charged against the present petitioner, I am of the view that no ground is made out for quashing the FIR or to quash the charges.

The petition under Section 482 of CrPC sans substance and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.