SURINDER KUMAR TANEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No. 467 of 1992, Police Station City, Ambala under Section 420 I.P.C. and the proceedings consequent thereto being illegal, malicious and sheer abuse of the process of law.

(2.) SHRI S.D. Gautam, Treasury Officer, Ambala who was posted in place of petitioner No. 1 filed a written complaint, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-1, alleging inter alia that while checking of pension record of Ambala Treasury and C.D.A. pension register beside making physical checking in respect of P.P.O. No. C/3094/88 in favour of Hori Lal, he came to know that Shri Hori Lal died on 30.5.1991. However, the Treasury Officer, petitioner No. 1 and his concerned staff continuously made the payment of pension till July 1992. The last payment was drawn on 23.8.1992. Thus, an amount of Rs. 12,374/- was drawn fraudulently against the pension account of Hori Lal, deceased. Likewise, it also came to his notice that one pensioner Smt. Man Kaur expired on 5.6.1989 and payment of Rs. 16,531/- was fraudulently made against her pension account from 30.6.1989 to 26.6.1992. No such payments were to be made after the demise of the pensioners; besides that according to rule 4.106 of S.T.R., before allowing the payment, verification of the pensioner is to be made physically by the Treasury Officer concerned. It was, thus, clear that wrong verification was done with mala fide intention and to defraud the State Government by petitioner No. 1 and his staff in connivance with each other. This criminal act was committed with the connivance of the petitioner No. 1 and others named in the complaint. It is further informed that fraudulent payments were drawn in cash from State Bank of India, Ambala.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the opposite parties, the allegations of the petitioners have been denied. Death certificates of Hori Lal and Smt. Man Kaur fully support the date of their death and drawing of pension subsequent thereto proves the fraudulent withdrawal of the government money besides that as per rule photograph of the pensioner is available on record. The photographs of said deceased pensioners were in fact available to the petitioners on record which proves that the withdrawal of the amount of pension was intentionally allowed by the petitioners in connivance with their co-accused. It is further contended that the case registered against the petitioners is not only under section 420 but also under Sections 467/468/471 I.P.C.