Chandrashekhar Khare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 351 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                   NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRMP No.276 of 2019

                  Judgment reserved on : 30.11.2021

                  Judgment delivered on : 21.01.2022

      Chandrashekhar Khare, S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Khare, Aged About
       30 Years, R/o Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir
       Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police
       Station Malkharoda, District Jangir Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondent

For Petitioner            Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate
For Respondent            Mr. Uddhav Sharma, GA



                  Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

                           C.A.V. Judgment

1. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred for

quashment of FIR bearing No.216/2017 as well as the entire

charge sheet filed against the petitioner by the Police of Police

Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence

punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC.

2. The impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner on

the basis of written complaint filed by one P. K. Patel, Senior

Agriculture Development Officer, Malkharoda on 09.01.2017 before

the Police Station Malkharoda alleging that the petitioner

committed cheating with the Department by working in two different

departments at the same time during the period from 07.12.2012 to

19.12.2013 and was drawing salary from both the departments.

After receiving the complaint, the concerned Police Station

investigated the matter and registered the aforesaid crime against

the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on

19.06.2018. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner

before the Trial Court, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2018

passed in MCRC No.6906/2018.

3. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, was

appointed as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer under Senior

Agriculture Development Officer, Malkharoda, Janjgir-Champa vide

order dated 03.07.2012, pursuant to which he joined on the said

post on 07.12.2012. The petitioner had also applied for the post of

Senior Research Fellow, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,

Raipur and upon his selection, vide order dated 29.11.2012, the

petitioner was temporarily engaged as Senior Research Fellow

under NICRA (National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture).

The petitioner joined his duties on 03.12.2012. The allegation

against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was working as

Senior Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dantewada from

03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as Krishi Vistar

Adhikari, Malkharoda from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 at the same

time and was also drawing salary for both the posts.

4. Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

the petitioner has not committed the act of cheating or defrauding

the Department and has not benefited himself with any monetary

gain. True it is that the petitioner, who was working as Senior

Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dantewada from

03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as Krishi Vistar

Adhikari, Malkharoda from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013 at the same

time and was also drawing salary for both the posts, but during the

aforesaid period, the petitioner gave/sent his resignation on three

occasions vide letters dated 01.01.2013, 04.10.2014 & 25.05.2015

(part of Annexure-A/2) before the concerned Department i.e.

Senior Agriculture Officer, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, but

none of them was accepted. The petitioner also complied the

notice received from the Department dated 06.04.2016 and

returned the amount which was said to be obtained/drew by the

petitioner and after paying the amount of Rs.8359/-, which was

received by the petitioner, the Senior Agriculture Development

Officer on 26.05.2015 issued No Dues Certificate certifying that no

amount is due against the petitioner. She further submits that the

petitioner only joined as Senior Research Fellow at Dantewada at

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dantewada for which he was receiving

scholarship and not salary and thereafter he was appointed as

Farm Manager at Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvidyalaya on

09.10.2014 and when the petitioner came to know about the fact

that inadvertently, he was drawing salary from the two

departments, he returned the amount of Rs.59,805/- through

DD/cheque, State Bank of India. She next submits that the

impugned FIR is delayed by more than 4 years and it is only the

result of mall-intention, which was pre-planned by the higher

officials of the petitioner, as earlier the petitioner has got registered

a complaint against Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal,

who were the higher officials of the petitioner, and the crime was

registered against them. Subsequently, they were convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 in ST No.234/2018 and sentenced to undergo

RI for 4-4 years. Thus, it is clear that the present is a counter-blast

to the complaint filed by the petitioner against his higher officials

i.e. Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal. The petitioner is

innocent and some employees and officers including the

complainant P. K. Patel, Upendramani Upadhyay and M. K.

Garhewal hatched conspiracy to first extract money illegally from

the petitioner when he made application for resignation and then

false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner just in order

to save their skin. Therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the

entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner is liable to be

quashed and the petition be allowed. Learned counsel has placed

reliance on Harishkumar Balchandra Rajput vs State of

Gujarat1, Virendra Kumar and another vs State of U.P. and

another2 and Dhanpat Kumar and others vs State of Bihar and

another3.

5. Mr. Uddhav Sharma, learned State counsel, opposes the argument

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that

the FIR has been registered against the petitioner only after

receiving a complaint and after due investigation, a prima facie

1 2021 CRLJ 4109 : AIR Online 2021 Guj 1079 2 Application under Section 482 No.4951/2003

case was found against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner was

arrested and the charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

7. The petitioner has filed various documents along with this petition.

Annexure-A/2 contains resignation letters written by the petitioner.

The letter dated 01.01.2013 was addressed to Varishth Krishi

Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, whereby the

petitioner showing his inability to continue on the post of Rural

Agriculture Extension Officer, Sonadula, District Janjgir-Champa

requested that his resignation may kindly be accepted. Again the

petitioner filed letter dated 04.10.2014 before Anuvibhagiya Krishi

Adhikari, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa for resignation from his

post. Copy of this letter was also addressed to Sambhagiya

Sanyukt Sanchalak Krishi, Bilaspur, Up Sanchalak, Krishi, Janjgir

and Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Malkharoda. Another letter was

written on 25.05.2015 addressing Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari,

Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa for his resignation.

Thereafter on 06.04.2016, the letter was sent to the petitioner by

the Office of Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Block Malkharoda,

District Janjgir-Champa, which states as under:-

" fo"k;karxZr vki xzk0 d`0 fo0 vf/k0 in ls R;kx i= pkgk gS fdUrq bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad [email protected]@2013 rd dk;Zjr Fks] ijUrq vkidksa osru Hkqxrku iwjs ekg ([email protected]@2013 ls [email protected]@2013) rd fn;k x;k gSA bl rjg dqy 13 fnuksa dk vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vr% vfr'kh?kz mDr vuqifLFkr vof/k (13 fnuksa) dk vf/kd osru Hkqxrku jkf'k :0 8359.00 pkyku ls tek dj

pkyku dh izfr bl dk;kZy; dks vFkok vuq0 d`f"k vf/k0 dk;kZy; lDrh esa izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk vkidk R;kx i= Lohd`r fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA "

Annexure-A/3 contains copy of bank statements, whereby

amount of Rs.59,805/- through DD/cheque dated 26.05.2015 and

amount of Rs.8,359/- through DD/cheque dated 12.04.2016 was

deposited by the petitioner with the Department. Annexure-A/4

contains No Dues Certificate, wherein it was certified that no

outstanding amount is due against the petitioner till 26.05.2015,

which states as under:-

"izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd [email protected] Jhefr pUnz'ks[kj [kjs xzk0 d`0 fo0 vf/k0 {ks= lksukMqyk tks fd dk;kZy; ofj"B d`f"k fodkl vf/kdkjh eky[kjkSnk ds v/khu inLFk gS ds Åij vkt fnukad [email protected]@2015 rd dksbZ Hkh jkf'k olwyh gsrq 'ks"k yafcr ugha gSA"

Annexure-A/4 also contains a certificate issued by the

Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Malkharoda, District

Janjgir-Champa, wherein it was informed that no departmental

enquiry is pending against the petitioner, which states as under:-

"izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh pUnz'ks[kj [kjs xzk- d`- fo- v- lksuknqyk ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh foHkkxh; tkap dk;kZy; esa yafcr ugha gSA"

Annexure-A/5 is the letter dated 23.08.2016, which is an

enquiry report and was addressed to the Director, Agriculture,

Chhattisgarh, Raipur by the Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur

Division, Bilaspur, which states as under:-

"fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr i= ds ifjikyu esa Jh pUnz'ks[kj [kjs rRdk0 xzk0 d`0 fo0 vf/k0 fo0 [k0 eky[kjkSnk ftyk tkatxhj&pkaik ds vuqifLFkr vof/k ,oa R;kx i= ds laca/k esa tkap dh xbZA vf/kuLFk deZpkfj;ksa us tkap esa viuk i{k j[krs

gq;s c;ku ,ao vius {ks= ds la/kkfjr vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu djrs gq;s tkudkjh nh] c;ku ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds [email protected] Vhi vafdr gS] ftldk tkap izfrosnu vfHkys[kksa] lghr fuEukuqlkj gSA"

layXu%& 1 tkap izfrosnu i`0dz 01 ls 06 rd 2 vf/kdkfj;ksa ,ao deZpkfj;ksa ds ewy c;ku izfr ,ao la/kkfjr vfHkys[kksa dh Nk;kizfr i`0dz0 01 ls 165 rd"

Thereafter, the written complaint was filed against the

petitioner by one P. K. Patel before the Police Station, Malkharoda,

District Janjgir-Champa on 07.11.2017.

8. It is clear from all the documents that after issuing a No Dues

Certificate, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on

the basis of the enquiry, the FIR was registered against him and he

was arrested on 19.06.2018. The charge sheet was filed against

the petitioner before the Trial Court, Malkharoda, District Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.). Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on

regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

24.10.2018 in MCRC No.6906/2018. On perusal of the aforesaid

documents, it is revealed that earlier, the petitioner filed a

complaint against Upendramni Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal on

01.03.2016, who were the higher officials of the petitioner, alleging

that both the accused persons demanded Rs.3 Lakhs as bribe and

accepted Rs.40,000/- as a bribe and threatened the petitioner that

criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. Thereafter the

trap proceedings were initiated against the accused and the

offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and subsequently they were

convicted by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption

Act) and 8th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in ST No.234/2018

and were sentenced to undergo RI for 4-4 years.

9. In the matter of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and others 4, the

Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation:-

8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent 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 guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exer- cised:

(a) 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 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the ac cused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation 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;

(c) 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;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings 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;

(g) 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."

10. In order to attract Section 420 of IPC, essential ingredients are (i)

cheating (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or

destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed

or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and mens

rea of accused at the time of making inducement which act of

omission.

11. In the matter of Dr. Vimla vs Delhi Administration 5, the Hon'ble

Apex Court explained the meaning of expression 'fraud'. The

expression 'fraud' involves two elements, deceit and injury to the

person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss i.e.

deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable or of

money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any

person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a

non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the

deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to the

deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or

advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the

deceived, the second condition is satisfied.

12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid legal

5 AIR 1963 SC 1572

position, it is quite clear from the documents filed by the petitioner

that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who

was working as Senior Research Fellow at Krishi Vigyan Kendra,

Dantewada from 03.12.2012 to 08.09.2014, was also working as

Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Malkharoda from 07.12.2012 to 19.12.2013

at the same time and was also drawing salary for both the posts. It

is pertinent to mention here that during the aforesaid period, the

petitioner on three occasions gave his resignation letters to the

Department, but one of them was accepted. Subsequently, the

Competent Authority gave No Dues Certificate vide Annexure-A/4

dated 26.05.2015 before the preliminary enquiry was initiated

against the petitioner. It is also to be taken note that earlier the

petitioner had filed complaint against his higher officials i.e.

Upendramani Upadhyay and M. K. Garhewal regarding bribery,

pursuant to which crime was registered against them.

Subsequently, they were convicted by the Court of Special Judge

(Prevention of Corruption Act) and 8 th Additional Session Judge,

Raipur in ST No.234/2018 for the offence punishable under

Section 7 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read

with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

were sentenced to undergo RI for 4-4 years. Thus, the present

case seems to be the counter-blast to the complaint filed by the

petitioner against his higher officials. Therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that this is a fit case where inherent powers of the Court

under Section 482 of CrPC would be exercised in favour of the

petitioner for securing the ends of justice.

13. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR

No.216/2017 and the entire charge sheet filed against the

petitioner by the Police of Police Station Malkharoda, District

Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 409 &

420 of IPC and the proceeding, if any, initiated in pursuance

thereof are hereby quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the

charges levelled against him.

Sd/-

Rajani Dubey Judge

Nirala