Uttarakhand High Court
Shishir Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 14 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Appl. (C482) No. 155 of 2021
Shishir Singh Rana .......Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand & anr.
.......Respondents
Present:
Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Date of hearing and order
14.12.2021
1. Application for urgency hearing heard and allowed.
The matter is taken for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, the
learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.
3. In this application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner being an accused in criminal case no.
6209 of 2020, of the court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar, arising out of the FIR No. 405 of
2019 dated 18.11.2019 at P.S. SIDCUL, Haridwar,
seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 14.07.2020 filed
by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner for
the alleged commission of offence under Sections 409,
420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC for brevity).
4. The FIR has been lodged against the petitioner
who is the owner of the U.P. College of Polytechnic for
Research. It is alleged by some students that the
petitioner has received money from the State of
Uttarakhand and has not extended the benefit to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students for
higher education and misappropriated the said money.
Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer found,
prima facie, that the petitioner has received a sum of
Rs. 30,27,600/- as students' scholarship from the State
of Uttarakhand on different dates. It is borne out from
the statements of the witnesses, recorded under
Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., that they have
never received any scholarship by the petitioner nor
they have been given any free education. Some of them
even stated that they were never enrolled in the
education institution in question.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that in this case ten students out of
the 14 witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer,
whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or 164
Cr.P.C., or under both the provisions have been
recorded, have already appeared in the Board of
examination, hence, the offences are not made out.
6. However, Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Dy. Advocate
General, on the other hand submits that subsequent
event of passing out will not take away the offence or
nullify criminal intent on the part of the petitioner.
7. In this connection, this Court takes into
consideration the judgment of State of Haryana &
others vs. Bhajan Lal & other, AIR 1992 SC 604,
wherein at paragraph 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has laid down the principles of law enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482
of Code for quashing of the FIR, charge sheet or
cognizance. The principles are as follows:-
(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 concerned Act (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 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.
Even, when such principles are satisfied, at
paragraph 109 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court further observed as a note of caution to
the effect that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercises very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
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 F.I.R. or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according its whim or caprice.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that in the present case the petitioner could not
make out a case that it falls within the seven principles
that enunciated above or that in such case
extraordinary power or inherent powers should be
exercised to quash the charge sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to quash the charge sheet. Hence, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed being devoid of merits.
10. Urgent certified copies of the judgment be
provided as per rules.
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
PV
