- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Praying therein that proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5567 of 2005, State of U. P. v. Raghvendra Pratap Singh and Ors. , for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 171 and 120-B, I. P. C. relating to P. S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra pending in the Court of C. J. M. , Sonbhadra as well as the charge-sheet relating to the said crime be quashed.
(2.) THE back ground facts of the case are that in the year 2000- 01, the applicant was the Senior Treasury Officer in District Sonbhadra. One Ram Nath Verma by praying fraud and manipulation of the documents came with the papers that he has been appended as Principal of Government Polytechnic, Sonbhadra and by committing fraud, cheating and falsification of document, he started withdrawing money and disbursing the same. THE said fraud was committed by the said Ram Nath Verma in the capacity of appointed Principal of Government Polytechnic, Sonbhadra. THE impersonation was detected by a telephonic massage received from the Additional Director Treasury (pension), Allahabad Division, Allahabad to the effect that the said Ram Nath Verma was playing fraud upon the department and the letters submitted by him for the office of Principal were forged. THE applicant, it is alleged in this application, lodged an FIR against the said Ram Nath Verma on 17-1-2001 vide Crime No. 23 of 2001 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 170, I. P. C. at P. S. Robertsganj vide Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. THE investigation into the crime resulted into charge-sheet against the said Ram Nath Verma vide Annexure No. 8-C on 12-4-2000 as charge-sheet No. 58 of 2001. Meanwhile, it transpires that the State Government seized the D. D. O. Code alloted to the Principal of Government Polytechnic of District Firozabad, Sonbhadra and Mau which Code was 4102 and seized the power of drawing and disbursing of money vide letter dated 24-12-2001. It further transpires that on the aforesaid charge-sheet against Ram Nath Verma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra took cognizance of the offence on 16-4-2001 and summoned the accused. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the case which was registered against Ram Nath Verma was numbered as Criminal Case No. 794 of 2001, State v. Ram Nath Verma. From the pleading made in this Crl. Misc. Application, it further transpires that then District Magistrate, Sonbhadra M. B. S. Rami Reddy made a recommendation to the State Government for further investigation into the crime under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. after obtaining the legal opinions. On the said recommendation, the State Government looked into the mailer and found prima facie offence being committed against the applicant ordered for further investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. vide Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. It was mentioned in the aforesaid letter by the Deputy Secretary, Government of U. P. dated 13-5- 2002 that on enquiry, prima facie, it was found that the applicant Raghvendra Pratap Singh by ignoring and non observing of various directions instigated the accused Ram Nath Verma and inconnivance with him committed fraud and cheated the Government to a tune of Rs. 12,12,660/ -. On the aforesaid recommendation vide Annexure No. 9 by the State Government further investigation was engineered and the complicity of the applicant into the crime was surfaced on 16-12-2002 vide parcha No. 26 dated 16-12-2002 (Annexure No. 10 ). Further investigation into the crime brought out the fact that the applicant was a socio criminis and, therefore, a supplementary charge-sheet dated 7- 10-2005 was filed against the applicant vide Annexure No. 18 to the affidavit filed in support of this Crl. Misc. Application. The aforesaid charge-sheet mentioned that sufficient evidence has been collected and prima facie offence is established against the applicant and one R. P. Singh the then Senior Treasury Officer, Sonbhadra. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the concerned authority was approached for grant of sanction to prosecute the applicant which sanction was granted on 16-10-2003 vide Annexure No. 14 to the affidavit for prosecuting the applicant for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 170 and 120-B, I. P. C. by the governor exercising his power under Section 197, Cr. P. C. After the sanction was granted on the basis of charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offence on 11-11-2005 and Case No. 5567 of 2005, State v. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, was registered in the Court of C. J. M. , Sonbhadra. In the aforesaid case the applicant was summoned for his appearance on 11-1-2006 in the Court and hence the present Crl. Misc. Application by the applicant invoking the inherent power of this Court to quash the charge-sheet and the proceeding of the aforesaid case. I have heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. in opposition.
(3.) SRI Shekhar contended that the whole prosecution of the applicant is absolutely mala fide and deserves to be quashed. He submitted that once the charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court then the Police had no power to make further investigation and the power lied with the Court to summon any person as an accused under Section 319, Cr. P. C. He further submitted that there is no evidence in the case diary to even prima facie indicate that the applicant has committed any offence. He further submitted that a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the applicant which departmental proceeding was conducted by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, who exonerated him from the charges leveled against the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant has been reinstated in service after his suspension order was revoked vide Annexure No. 11-C dated 8-3-2002. He further submitted that District Magistrate and the Director Technical Education who were directly involved in the scandal alongwith Ram Nath Verma aforesaid, to save their skin, got the applicant falsely implicated inconnivance Principal of DIET (District Institute of Education and Training ). He further submitted that the aforesaid higher official of the State Government connived against the applicant and got him falsely implicated. He further submitted that from the various Government orders, it is absolutely clear that the applicant had followed the procedure prescribed for drawing and disbursing salary from the accounts. In his support he has pointed out various Government orders filed as annexures at the time of the arguments. Learned Counsel further contended that the supplementary charge-sheet which has been filed against the applicant is absolutely illegal as the applicant has not committed any offence at all. He further submitted that the applicant had fulfilled his responsibility in accordance with the G. O. dated 24- 7-1970 detailing the job responsibility of Assistant Treasury Officer and the G. O. dated 24-7-1991 (Annexure No. 13-B) prescribing the job responsibility of Senior Treasury Officer. He further submitted that the sanction granted by the State Government vide Annexure No. 14 is absolutely illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law. He further submitted that Section 197, Cr. P. C. has been engrafted to protect the Government servants from being illegal by harassed and the present case is one such case where the applicant is being harassed at the instance of higher officials. He further pointed out that earlier the applicant had approached this Court when no charge-sheet was submitted against him by filing Crl. Misc. Application No. 1971 of 2004 but on the disclosure of the said fact that no charge-sheet was laid against him he withdrew that petition as not pressed. He further contended that the whole proceeding against the applicant is mala fide and deserves to be quashed as no offence is disclosed and the applicant is absolutely innocent. During the course of the arguments SRI Shekar has also argued regarding the involvement of some of the leaders of the then ruling party. He further submitted that the charge-sheet as well as the proceeding pending against the applicant before C. J. M. , Sonbhadra be quashed. Learned A. G. A. on the other hand contended that this application is merit less. After the investigation prima facie offence was disclosed against the applicant and, therefore, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. He further contended that in this case, an amount of Rs. 12,12,660/- was embezzled by unauthorized withdrawal and disbursement by the applicant in connivance with the other accused. He further contended that the State Government looked into the matter and on the recommendation of the District Magistrate further investigation was undertaken in which the complicity of the applicant in the crime came out and, therefore, the applicant must be prosecuted. He further submitted that all the questions raised by learned Counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of facts, which require proof and the trial must be allowed to proceed. Learned A. G. A. contended that alongwith this application no statement of witnesses etc. which have been recorded during the investigation has been appended and, therefore, the material on the basis of which charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant has not been disclosed by the applicant in the present Criminal Misc. Application and, therefore, this application deserves to be dismissed. Learned A. G. A. further contended that the applicant has got a right to claim discharge before the Magistrate concerned and he can raise all his grievances before him. He concluding submitted that the present Crl. Misc. Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.;