SHANTI SWAROOP MAHAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shanti Swaroop Mahar
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH,J -
(1.) . (Oral)
1. A belated counter affidavit has been filed by the State, which though has been kept with the record, but no cognizance thereon has been
(2.) VIRENDRA Singh Mahar was, at the relevant time, the Principal of the College. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 925 of 2005, Pareshwar Prasad Bhatt
complained that Virendra Singh Mahar is withdrawing salaries of an
This Court, by an order dated 26th
Assistant Teacher fraudulently.
October, 2005, directed a report in respect of such allegation to be filed.
Such a report was filed, when it was reported that Smt. Sarita Pundir, D/o
Virendra Singh Mahar was appointed as Assistant Teacher and she was
drawing salaries and such salaries were being deposited in her account
directly and, accordingly, the allegation that Virendra Singh Mahar was
withdrawing the salaries payable to one Assistant Teacher is untrue. The
report to that extent was accepted by the writ court by an order passed on
22nd April, 2006, which has reached its finality.
In the year 2006, a First Information Report was filed against Virendra Singh Mahar, Smt. Sarita Pundir and Shanti Swaroop Mahar,
who was then the Manager of the College. In that, it has been alleged
that, in law, a relative of a member of the Managing Committee of the
College could not be appointed and appointment of Smt. Sarita Pundir,
D/o Virendra Singh Mahar, Principal of the College and a member of the
Managing Committee, having been made, the same was made with an
object of committing such crimes, which are punishable under various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code. That First Information Report has led to investigation, which
in turn, has resulted in filing of a charge-sheet, cognizance whereon has
been taken and, aggrieved thereby, the present Application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed.
(3.) THE basic contention is this that, on the basis of the report referred to above and accepted by this Court, the purported crime has been
exonerated. I am unable to accept the same, inasmuch as, the Court
directed a report to be filed in relation to the allegation whether Virendra
Singh Mahar is usurping salaries payable to an Assistant Teacher in the
name of Smt. Sarita Pundir or not. That had nothing to do with an
appointment to be given to Smt. Sarita Pundir contrary to law in order to
enable withdrawal of salary payable to an Assistant Teacher.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.