Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 19661/2018
(Rajeev Khare Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Jabalpur
Dated: 24.06.2021
Mr. Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
MR. Pushpendra Verma, learned P.L. for the respondent/ State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling in question the
order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P/6) and 28.07.2018 (Annexure
P/8). By said orders application filed by the petitioner for deferring
departmental enquiry till decision in criminal case pending against the
petitioner was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Police Station:
Cantt. Sagar registered FIR against the petitioner under Sections 341
and 384 of the IPC. As per the said FIR, Superintendent of Police on
18.09.2011 found on inspection that petitioner Rajeev Khare was doing
illegal recovery from truck drivers by forcing them to pay money. The
petitioner was stopping trucks on highway and forcing drivers to pay
money. The said act of the petitioner to pay money amounts to wrongful
restrainment and extortion, therefore, order was passed to register FIR.
The FIR was registered at crime No. 515/11 at Police Station: Sagar
Cantt. under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC. On the same set of
facts, respondents had initiated departmental enquiry and charge-sheet
has been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that as on the same set
of facts, which is sought to be proved by same witnesses and Panch-
witnesses in criminal case and in departmental enquiry, therefore,
departmental enquiry may be deferred till decision in criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of M.
Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in
(1993)3 SCC 679. It is submitted by him that the present case is
identical to the case of M. Paul Anthony (Supra), therefore, impugned
orders be set aside and respondents be directed to stay/ defer
departmental enquiry till decision of criminal case.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the prayer
and it is submitted by him that it is settled law and basic principle that
proceedings for criminal case and departmental enquiry can go
simultaneously except where departmental enquiry and criminal cases
are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both are common. It
is submitted by him that in this case, facts which are sought to be
proved in departmental enquiry and criminal case are different,
therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be
dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
On perusal of the FIR dated 18.09.2011, it is found that offence
against the petitioner is registered under Sections 341 and 384 of the
IPC. Before Criminal Court, it is to be proved that the petitioner stopped
truck on the highway and did not allow them to proceed in particular
direction and further had done extortion by forcing drivers to pay him
money, however, in departmental enquiry charge-sheet has been
issued for violation of regulations 634 and 637(Gha) of M.P. Police
Regulation Act, 1861 . In departmental enquiry it is to be proved that the
petitioner has made entries in the General Diary, which are not true.
The facts to be proved in criminal case and that of departmental enquiry
are different. Though some common witnesses may prove different
facts in these proceedings but as facts are not same, therefore, benefit
of judgment dated 30.03.1999 passed by the Apex Court in the case of
M. Paul Anthony (Supra) cannot be given to the petitioner. Entries in
General Diary may be done with motive to commit offence or to cover
up offence but facts which are to be proved in criminal case and
departmental enquiry are different.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
VIKRAM SINGH
2021.06.29 17:28:21
+05'30'
