Anil Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3471 Jhar

                                   1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 91 of 2011

    Anil Kumar Gupta                     ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2. Yatindra Prasad                    ..... ...Opp. Parties
                                   With
                    Cr.M.P. No. 126 of 2011

    Yogendra Sharma                             ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2. Yatindra Prasad                    ..... ...Opp. Parties
                        With
                   Cr.M.P. No. 130 of 2011

    Rajdeo Singh                         ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2. Yatindra Prasad                    ..... ...Opp. Parties

                             With
                   Cr.M.P. No. 1185 of 2011

    Yogendra Prasad Singh                ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2. Yatindra Prasad                   ..... ...Opp. Parties
                             With
                    Cr.M.P. No. 2639 of 2014

    Awadhesh Prasad Singh                       ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                       ..... ...Opp. Party

     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                              ------

For the Petitioners: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Jayesh Anand, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate (in Cr.M.P. No. 91/2011 & 2639/2014) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate Ms. Shrestha Priya Jha, Adovocate

( In Cr.M.P. No. 126/2011, 130/2011 and 1185/2011

For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

( in Cr.M.P. No.91./2011 & 2639/2014, 1185/2011) Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

( in Cr.M.P. No. 130/2011) Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.

( in Cr.M.P. No.126/2011)

21/ Dated:-13.09.2023 In all the petitions common question of law are involved

and common F.I.R. is under challenge that is why all the petitions

have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the

petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos. 91/2011 and 2639 of 2014, Mr. Nilesh

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos. 126/2011,

130/2011 and 1185/2011, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for

the State in Cr.M.P. Nos. 91/2011, 2639/2014 and Cr.M.P. No.

1185/2011, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal learned counsel for the State

in Cr.M.P. No. 130/2011 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned

counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 126/2011.

3. Since all these cases have been filed in the year, 2011

wherein only F.I.R. is under challenge and time to time these

matters have been adjourned on one and another ground. These

matters were taken up on 31.07.2023 and it was informed by the

public prosecutors that chargesheet has already been submitted,

the learned counsel for the petitioners took time to verify the fact

and if necessary, file proper petition but no petition was filed and

again adjournment was sought however considering the pendency

of these cases since 2011 Court refused the prayer of adjournment

thereafter Mr. Nilesh Kumar produced certified copy of chargesheet

as well as cognizance order which is taken on record. However,

there is no prayer in these petitions for quashing the order taking

cognizance and chargesheet.

4. All these petitions have been filed for quashing the

entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. being Kotwali P.S. Case

No. 111 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 835 of 2000, registered

under sections 406, 409, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ranchi.

5. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report

of informant-Yatindra Prasad, Executive Magistrate, Ranchi alleging

therein that a joint team of Departmental administrative and

technical officers was constituted for ground enquiry and

verification of the work done against the money allotted to Rural

Engineering Organisation Division, Ranchi by the Government, on

the instructions of Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development

Department, Patna, Bihar vide demi-official letter 401/C dated 30

November 1993 as well as Additional Commissioner, Rural

Development Department, Patna, Bihar vide letter no. 54 AA/Gr. Vi,

Dated 18 February, 2000. The Joint Development Secretary, Ranchi

also sent a letter no. 106/Go. Dated 13 March, 2000. The

investigation team constituted of namely, Mr Sumant Kumar Sinha,

Assistant Project Officer, District Rural Development Department,

Ranchi, Mr S.N. Chaubey, Assistant Engineer, Kanke, who were

assigned Bero, Lapung, Kanke, Ratu Block as well as Mr Madhav

Sharan Singh, District Planning Officer, Ranchi and Mr Ajay Kumar

Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Namkum Block, who were assigned

Namkum, Angara and Silli Block, for the qualitative analysis and

assessment of the work done at the respective assigned locations.

The aforementioned Investigating Team did the Site

Inspection of the listed Schemes as well as physical verification and

Technical Investigation. As per the report submitted by the

Investigating Team, the allotted money for the construction Scheme

was withdrawn through various cheques, having different dates

bearing the signature of Basant Kumar Das, Executive Engineer,

Rural Engineering Organisation Department, Ranchi, from the

Treasury.

As per the report, out of 16 projects, 9 were listed as

already completed and 4 were reported to be nearly completed. Out

of the allotted and received 110.00 lacs, 104.962 Lacs was

withdrawn on the certificate that work has been completed against

the withdrawn amount. Executive Engineer had signed on the

progress report whereas it was found by the investigating team that

the work was not done against the withdrawn amount as well as the

sanctioned amount. Most of the work done was found to be

incomplete as well as of inferior quality. It is clear from the

investigation that the accused had intention to embezzle the

government money right from the beginning and they drafted

wrong estimate for the allotment of funds which included the

misleading provisions. For example, serious irregularities have been

found in the supply and use of the Grade I and Grade II Metals and

soil work in flanks.

It is notable that for any of the construction Schemes,

the corresponding estimate has been prepared by the Junior

Engineer, which is verified by Assistant Engineer In-Charge of the

respective Work Department. The Executive Engineer, upon

satisfaction of the estimate, gives the technical approval. This is the

procedure for allotment of fund to the Works Department for work

under construction Scheme. The allotted fund is withdrawn by the

Executive Engineer of the related Works Department through the

cheque bearing the name of Assistant Engineer/ Junior Engineer,

assigned under the Scheme. Measurement Book (MB) is prepared

by the Junior Engineer. Post physical inspection, the Assistant

Engineer signs on it. Lastly the Executive Engineer is supposed to

perform physical inspection of the work site to check the work done

according to the estimate. Hence it is clear that the

responsibility/accountability of verification and assurance of the

funds from the approval till the work to be done according to the

estimate lies equally on the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers,

as well as the Junior Engineers.

The irregularity, carelessness and embezzlement done by

the respective Technical officials of the Rural Engineering Division

was reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to the

Government vide Letter no. 142/Go. dated 02nd April 2000. Upon

which the Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development

Department, Patna instructed to register an FIR against the accused

technical officers vide, letter no 205/C dated 22nd April 2000. The

complainant was instructed to register the FIR by the Deputy

Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter no 287/DC dated 24th April 2000.

It is clear from the investigation report and facts that the

Executive Engineer of Rural Engineering organisation Works

Division, Ranchi, 1. Mr Basant Kumar Das, as well as the officials

working under him namely, 2. Mr. Rajdeo Singh, Assistant engineer,

REO, Lower Division, Ranchi, 3. Mr. Pashupati Singh, Assistant

Engineer (Retired), REO, Lower Division, Ranchi, 4. Mr. Anil Kumar

Gupta, Assistant engineer, REO, Lower Division, Silli, 5. Mr. Vinod

Kumar, Junior Engineer, Work Division, Lapung 6. Mr. Yogendra

Sharma, Junior Engineer, Work Division, Bero, 7. Mr. A.P. Singh,

Junior Engineer, Work Division, Kanke, 8. Mr Arvind Prasad, Junior

Engineer, Work Division, Silli, 9. Mr. Dhaneshwar Sahu, Junior

Engineer, Work Division, Angara and 10. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Singh,

Junior Engineer, Work Division, Namkum all of them intentionally in

a premeditated manner hatched a criminal conspiracy to embezzle

the government money by drafting wrong estimate, misreporting,

false certificates of work done, while it was incomplete and of

inferior quality as against the estimate. Excessive estimate including

misleading provisions was also drafted to embezzle lacs of rupees of

government money. Hence, this FIR.

6. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioners in

Cr.M.P. Nos. 91/2011 and 2639 of 2014 submits that in F.I.R.

allegations are made that the construction were mooted through

the one or other scheme under the Rural Development Department

and for which the Government granted sanction for their execution

through Rural Engineering Organization, Ranchi and there were

altogether 16 roads under the entire Division. He submits that so

far as petitioners are concerned, petitioner-Anil Kumar Gupta was

posted as Assistant Engineer, REO, Sub-Division, Silly and

petitioner-Awadhesh Prasad Singh was posted as Junior Engineer,

Kanke Section under Ranchi REO Sub-Division-II. He submits that

the petitioners were only concerned with three roads. He submits

that on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted by the non-

technical person case has been instituted. He submits that there is

no allegation of forging of the documents in view of that section

467, 468 and 471 are not attracted in the case. He further submits

that complaint was made before the Deputy Commissioner on

02.04.2000 pursuant to that F.I.R. has been registered. He further

submits that by way of Annexure-2 enquiry report was submitted to

the Government whereby the petitioners have been exonerated. He

further refers to Annexure-3 which is another enquiry report and

submits that the petitioners have also been exonerated by the

second enquiry report. He submits that government by way of

Annexure-4 has accepted the enquiry report and exonerated the

petitioners. He further submits that once in enquiry proceeding the

petitioners have not been found guilty, the criminal proceeding is

liable to be quashed. He submits that identical was the situation in

two of the cases decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Cr.M.P. No. 749 of 2011 which was decided on 03.05.2012 and

Cr.M.P. No. 177/2009 decided on 23.07.2012 and considering that in

the departmental proceeding petitioners of that cases were

exonerated the criminal proceeding was quashed by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court. He further submits that this Court has further

quashed the criminal proceeding in Cr.M.P. No. 2578 of 2016 and

Cr.M.P. No. 156 of 2020 considering that in the departmental

proceeding the petitioners were exonerated. He submits that while

allowing those petitions the case of "Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari V. C.B.I." (2020) 9 SCC 636 was also considered by this

Court. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal

proceeding may kindly be quashed.

7. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in

Cr.M.P. Nos. 126/2011, 130/2011 and 1185/2011 after the argument

of Mr. Krishna Murari learned counsel for the petitioners he further

added by way of referring the contents of Cr.M.P. No. 1185/2011

and submits that at page 65 the first enquiry report is there by

which the petitioners have been exonerated. He submits that in

second enquiry report contained in Annexure-3 page 68 further the

petitioners have been exonerated and the Government has already

accepted the exoneration by way of annexure-4. He submits that

in view of above the entire criminal proceeding considering that in

the departmental proceeding the petitioners have been exonerated,

may kindly be quashed. He also refers to the case of "Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari (supra) and has relied on the judgments

passed by this Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

which Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel has relied. On these

grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly

be quashed.

8. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-

State submits that investigation has already been completed and

chargesheet has been submitted and what are the materials in the

chargesheet that has already been considered by the learned court

and thereafter he has taken cognizance and at this stage this Court

may not interfere with the matter and entire criminal proceeding

may not be quashed. She draws the attention of the Court to the

enquiry report in one of the case in Cr.M.P. No. 91/2011 and submits

that the prosecution in the departmental proceeding has in fact

conceded and not led any evidence in support of the departmental

proceeding and in view of that the enquiry officer exonerated the

petitioners. She submits that if such a situation is there only on the

ground of exoneration in departmental proceeding, the petitioners

are not liable to be discharged. She further submits that

chargesheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been

taken which is not under challenge. She further submits that if such

a situation is there and criminal proceeding is not based on the

same facts as well as the witnesses on the same ground the entire

criminal proceeding may not be quashed. To buttress her argument,

she relied in the case of "State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar

Tyagi" (2012) 9 SCC 685. She refers to para 18 to 20, 24 and

25 of the said judgment which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"18. Thereafter, this Court in P.S. Rajya case [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] referred to its earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , and reproduced the illustrations laid down for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution. The categories of cases by way of illustrations, wherein power could be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice read as follows: (Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "(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 entirety 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 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. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, 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." The aforesaid illustrations do not contemplate that on exoneration in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the same charge or evidence is to be quashed. However, this Court in P.S. Rajya case [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] quashed the prosecution on the peculiar facts of that case, finding that the said case can be brought under more than one head enumerated in the guidelines. This would be evident from paras 21 and 22 of the judgment, which read as follows: (P.S. Rajya case [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 9) "21. The present case can be brought under more than one head given above in Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] without any difficulty.

22. The above discussion is sufficient to allow this appeal on the facts of this case."

19. Even at the cost of repetition, we hasten to add that none of the heads in P.S. Rajya [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] is in relation to the effect of exoneration in the departmental proceedings on criminal prosecution on identical charge. The

decision in P.S. Rajya [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , therefore, does not lay down any proposition that on exoneration of an employee in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the identical charge or the evidence has to be quashed.

20. It is well settled that the decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not what flows from it. The mere fact that in P.S. Rajya [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , this Court quashed the prosecution when the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceeding would not mean that it was quashed on that ground. This would be evident from para 23 of the judgment, which reads as follows: (SCC p. 9) "23. Even though all these facts including the report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1996, order dated 27-3-1996 (SC)] for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs."

(emphasis supplied) From the reading of the aforesaid passage of the judgment it is evident that the prosecution was not terminated on the ground of exoneration in the departmental proceeding but, on its peculiar facts.

24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] . In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer based on those evidence.

25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy."

9. She further relied in the case of State of "State

through SPE & C.B.I Vs. M. Krishna Mohan and Another"

(2007) 14 SCC 667. She refers to para 32,33, 34 of the said

judgment which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"32. Mr Nageswara Rao relied upon a decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] . The fact situation obtaining therein was absolutely different. In that case, in the vigilance report, the delinquent officer was shown to be innocent. It was at that juncture, an application for quashing of the proceedings was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] holding: (P.S. Rajya case [(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 9, para 23) "23. Even though all these facts including the report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued."

(underlining [Ed.: Herein italicised.] is ours for emphasis)

33. The said decision was, therefore, rendered on the facts obtaining therein and cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.

34. In Supdt. of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary [(1995) 6 SCC 225 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1095] this Court while considering a matter of sanction vis-à-vis exoneration in a departmental proceedings, held: (SCC p. 226, para 5) "5. We find force in the contention. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative act the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice."

10. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the

respondent-State further added in the argument of Mrs. Priya

Shrestha that if the prayer for quashing of F.I.R. is there and in view

of that principle of quashing is only to look into the F.I.R. and not

go to any document which is foreign to the F.I.R. and nothing can

be added and substituted.

11. In reply, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that so far the judgment relied by the learned

counsel for the respondent-State in the case of Ajay Kumar Tyagi

(supra) is concerned that has been held per incuriam by the Orisa

High Court CRLMC No. 3407 of 2010. The said ground was also

repeated by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in

reply and he also submits that case relied by the learned counsel for

the respondent-State particularly in the case of Ajay Kumar Tyagi

(supra), the interference of this court is not required.

12. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R.

and the materials on record including annexures on which the

petitioners are relying and the chargesheet and the cognizance

order which has been produced by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioners which has been taken on record. In the

F.I.R. there are allegations of mis-utilizing the fund allotted for

construction of road sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 110.00 lacs,

however Rs. 104.962 Lacs has been withdrawn on the ground that

the road has been constructed. It has been further alleged that on

wrong certificates and the documents without completing the work

in accordance with the mandate the amount has been utilized and

several lakhs of government money was embezzled. This F.I.R. was

registered by the Executive Engineer, Ranchi on the direction of

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as the said allegation was received by

the Deputy Commissioner and the enquiry was conducted and

pursuant to that the present F.I.R. has been registered. The

enquiry is the part of the said F.I.R which is a detail enquiry report

wherein it has been disclosed about the manner of withdrawing the

amount and misappropriation of the said amount by the petitioners

who are accused in the present F.I.R. Looking into the enquiry

report on which much emphasis has been made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, it appears that in the departmental

proceeding no evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution and

the conducting officer has only stated that he has nothing to add

and if such a situation was there, the question remains as to

whether this was an exoneration on merit or only on the

technicalities. It is well settled that even a criminal case acquittal is

there on technicalities the departmental proceeding cannot be

quashed. However, in the case in hand criminal proceeding has not

been concluded as yet and the departmental proceeding in absence

of any evidence led by the department they have been exonerated.

The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the

case of"Ashoo Surendranath Tewari(supra) is not in dispute

and considering that judgment this Court has also quashed the

criminal proceeding in Cr.M.P. No. 2578/2016 along with Cr.M.P. No.

2249/2016 by order dated 25.04.2022 and in Cr.M.P. No. 156 of

2020 by order dated 18.08.2022.

13. In Cr.M.P. No. 2578 of 2016 the allegation was made

by a lady against the petitioners of that cases who were the

officers of BCCL about sexual harassment and in the departmental

proceeding the petitioners were honorary exonerated and

considering the case of "Vishaka" of the the Hon'ble Supreme

Court with regard to such harassment that order was passed. Thus

fact of the present is otherwise that is why that order of this court is

not helping the petitioners. In Cr.M.P. No. 156 of 2020 the

allegation was against the I.P.S officer of a district and it was found

that the allegations are made when he was discharging the official

duty and considering that there is no sanction under section 197 of

Cr.P.C. and further exoneration in departmental proceeding that

order was passed. In view of that the order passed by this Court in

Cr.M.P. No. 156/2020 is also not helping the petitioners as the fact

of the present case are otherwise.

14. Two judgments relied by Mr. Krishna Murari in Cr.M.P. No.

749 of 2011 and Cr.M.P. No. 177/2009 the facts are otherwise In

both the above cases apart from the departmental proceeding

chargesheet was also submitted whereby the petitioners were not

sent up for trial however, the learned court has taken cognizance

and considering the exoneration in departmental proceeding, the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous

petitions. In the case in hand the matters are otherwise. In the

present case chargesheet has been submitted and cognizance has

been taken.

15. In the above background it appears that there are

allegations in the F.I.R. against these petitioners. There is no doubt

that when the accused approaching the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

the proceeding quashed on the ground that such proceedings are

manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the

Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more

closely. Once the complainant decides to proceed against the

accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance,

etc., then he would ensure that the complaint is very well drafted

with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that

the averments made in the complaint are such that they disclose

the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. In view

of that the Court is duty bound to look into the averments made in

the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed

or not. The High Court owes duty to look into many other attending

circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above

the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try

to read in between the lines.

16. Coming to the facts of the present case there are

allegations of embezzlement of government money. The

chargesheet has been submitted and looking into the chargesheet

produced by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, which has been taken on record, it

transpires that there is allegation of misappropriation of

government money and not completion of work in terms of work

order.

17. We the People, with the adoption of our constitution,

had expected very high standards from people occupying positions

of trust and responsibility in line with the constitutional ethos and

values. It is not only elusive but unthinkable in present times. In this

regard reference may be made to the case of "State of

Chhattisgarh and Another Vs. Aman Kumar Singh and

Others" reported in (2023) 6 SCC 559 wherein para 49 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"49. "We the People", with the adoption of our Constitution, had expected very high standards from people occupying positions of trust and responsibility in line with the constitutional ethos and values. Regrettably, that has not been possible because, inter alia, a small section of individuals inducted in public service for "serving the public" appear to have kept private interest above anything else and, in the process, amassed wealth not proportionate to their known sources of income at the cost of the nation. Although an appropriate legislation is in place to prevent the cancer of corruption from growing and developing, wherefor maximum punishment by way of imprisonment for ten years is stipulated, curbing it in adequate measure, much less eradicating it, is not only elusive but unthinkable in present times."

18. The order taking cognizance which has been produced

by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners which has

been taken on record, the Court finds that the learned court has

looked into the case diary and the case record and chargesheet and

found a prima facie materials and thereafter has taken cognizance.

19. This is not a case that learned court was examining any

complaint on the basis of solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses.

The F.I.R. has been registered and after proper investigation

chargesheet has been submitted and thereafter applying the judicial

mind the learned trial court has taken the cognizance. The

materials were already there before the learned court in the form of

chargesheet.

20. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based

upon a police report and for issuance of summons under section

204 of Cr.P.C., a detailed enquiry regarding merits and demerits of

the case is not required in cases instituted on a police report, the

Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the

accused and such an order is based upon subject to satisfaction of

the learned Magistrate considering police report and other

documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding against the accused and the Magistrate is not required

to record any reason in case, if the chargesheet is barred by law or

where there is lack of jurisdiction or when chargesheet is rejected

or not taken on file, then the learned Magistrate is required to

record his reasons for rejection of chargesheet and for not taking on

file. The cognizance of offence was taken by taking into

consideration chargesheet filed by the police, order for issuance of

process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for

issuance of process for its satisfaction for issue of process does not

suffer from any illegality. Reference may be made to the case of

"Bhushan Kumar and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and

Another (2012) 5 SCC 424.

21. Further mens rea can only be decided only in the trial

and not at the stage of issuing summons when prosecution relies

upon the materials, strict standard or proof is not to be applied at

the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable

defence which the accused may take all that the court is required to

do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for

proceeding before summoning the accused, the facts stated will

have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it for

issuance of process against the accused, it has to seen only whether

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and

the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of materials

on record. The Court must apply its judicial mind to the allegations

in the chargesheet and evidence produced and satisfy itself that

there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the Court

is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to

determine the adequacy of evidence for holding the accused guilty.

The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defence.

The possible defences need not be taken into consideration at the

time of issuing process unless there is an ex-facie defence such as a

legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable whether the accused

had mens rea or not is not to be established at the stage of

issuance of summons.

22. The principle of quashing the F.I.R. as well as entire

criminal proceeding have been considered time and again by the

High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been

repeatedly held that quashing of entire criminal proceeding the

Court is not required to roam into and come to the conclusion that

the case of quashing is made out. If the prima facie case is made

out the F.I.R. is not required to be quashed.

23. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court

comes to the conclusion that no case of interference is made out.

Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed. Pending I.A, if any,

stands disposed of. Interim orders passed in respective cases are

vacated.

24. What has been discussed hereinabove with regard to

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

with regard to quashing of F.I.R. as well as entire criminal

proceeding, trial will proceed in accordance with law without

prejudice by this order.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-A.F.R.