Amar Saran, J. - (1.) -This application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1356 of 2002, Dharamveer Singh v. Kapil Arun and others, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shahr, district Bijnore, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Bijnore.
(2.) THE first information report in this case was lodged against the applicant on 7.9.2002 by Dharamveer Singh, who showed himself as the manager of Arya Vedi Kanya Inter College, Bijnore. THE applicant was the lady acting Principal of the said college. THE co-accused were Kapil Arun, the administrator of the college and Mangla Prasad Sonia, the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnore (for short the D.I.O.S.). THE allegations in the F.I.R. were that the said college was run by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow, which is a registered body. THE complainant, Dharamveer Singh, claimed himself to be the legally elected manager of the institution. THE applicant was suspended on 21.6.1999 by the managing committee. Information about the suspension of the applicant was given to the D.I.O.S., Mangla Prasad Sonia and the other authorities. It was alleged that in spite of that information, the co-accused Mangla Prasad Sonia, in collusion with another co-accused, Kapil Arun, the administrator, passed a fake bill of salary of the applicant on 23.8.1999. This was done with the object of embezzling Government funds. I have heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K. M. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2. The contention of the applicant is that no case of cheating or breach of trust or forgery under any of the Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 or 471, I.P.C. is disclosed against the applicant or the co-accused. It was further submitted that the F.I.R. does not mention as to what amount was entrusted to the applicant and what was embezzled. It is clear that the applicant has jointly signed the salary bill along with the Administrator and the D.I.O.S., Sri Mangla Prasad Sonia. Withdrawal of the salary has been effected by cheque from the treasury. The D.I.O.S. and the Administrator have been made co-accused in a mala fide manner only for rendering illegal their action of signing the applicant's salary cheque. The suspension order dated 21.6.1999, stood revoked after 60 days and there was no fetter on the applicant in signing the salary cheque. Also there was an order dated 20.8.1999, passed by the administrator, holding that on the expiry of 60 days the suspension of the applicant had automatically come to an end. The Investigating Officer even submitted a final report on 8.11.1999 and cognizance has been taken in this case on the basis of a protest petition by order of the C.J.M., Bijnore, dated 30.4.2002. Significantly, the applicant continues to be the Principal of the institution, and Sri Kapil Arun is still the administrator, and this F.I.R. was basically lodged in a mala fide manner because there was a dispute for control of the management of the college.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2 has submitted that the institution in which the applicant is alleged to have embezzled the funds was a grants-in-aid institution. There was no need for proving the mode of entrustment and the ingredients of the offence were made out as soon as there was wrongful appropriation of the funds by a person who was not entitled to the same. The applicant was not entitled to the withdrawal of her salary for the suspension period, and was entitled only for suspension allowance and, thus, dishonesty was writ large in the circumstances of the case. It was further submitted that there is a finding by the Investigating Officer that there was embezzlement. The applicant was not entitled to the salary as the matter was still pending before the D.I.O.S., who had not decided the same. The co-accused Kapil Arun was not entitled to function as the administrator and for signing the cheque, as by an order of the District Magistrate dated 20.8.1999, he was disentitled to function as the administrator on the material date, i.e., 23.8.1999. On examination of the rival cases put forward by the applicant and the complainant, it does appear to me that this case has degenerated into a malicious and vindictive persecution. It appears that rival parties are vehemently fighting for the control of the institution. Litigation in this regard is pending even in the High Court and the complainant, Dharam Veer Singh, has filed a writ petition for quashing of the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 16.8.1999 and for restraining the respondents, which included the D.I.O.S. and the administrator Kapil Arun, from interfering with his functioning as the manager and an order was passed by this Court on 7.9.1999, disposing of the writ petition. By this order, this Court held that the D.I.O.S. may pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2 months from the date of production of that order before him. In the meanwhile, the order dated 16.8.1999 was kept in abeyance and was to be subject to the final orders to be passed by the D.I.O.S. after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. However, in the meanwhile it was open to the D.I.O.S. to manage the institution either by himself, or by any officer of the State Government appointed by him in that regard.;