Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) CRL . Misc. Nos. M -53564 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -54346 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -54347 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -54348 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -55071 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -55121 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -54719 of 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M -6794 of 2008, Crl. Misc. No. M -6795 of 2008 and Crl. Misc. No. M -5890 of 2010 shall stand disposed of by this common order as all the petitions were ordered to be heard together on 19.03.2008. Reply filed by the State, in the present petition, was considered to be reply in all the petitions, as all the petitions arise out of the same FIR. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. M -53564 of 2007.
(2.) THESE are petitions under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 55 dated 28.04.2000 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC read with Section 13(1)(2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Nawanshahr and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto including the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure dated 23.03.2007 (Annexure P -9). Balraj Singh and A.P. Punj, who are complainants, were once posted at the same place as the Petitioners. Both were working as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Punjab. They submitted their affidavit, stating therein, that they had completed the works before 30.06.1999 in their respective sections. The S.D.O. Joginder Singh prepared bills in respect of the work done made by Gursharan Singh and Nirmal Singh, Jes, much above the actual costs and bogus estimates were prepared. The S.D.O along with J.Es., as mentioned in the affidavit, had raised bills and made payments to the contractors, namely, Soondh Co -operative Society and C. Society, which belongs to the family of SDO Joginder Singh Mann and that their entire action was fraudulent. It was further alleged that these complainants further refused to make Bills much above the actual costs as directed by the said S.D.O. On the basis of this affidavit, FIR, in question, was registered at Police Station Nawanshahr.
(3.) THE Petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No. 23093 -M of 2000 praying for quashing of the above mentioned FIR. The same was allowed by the Single Bench of this Court vide Order dated 11.05.2001. The complainants Balraj Singh and another challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide order and judgment dated 29.08.2002, set aside the order of the learned Single Bench by giving opportunity to the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation. Thereafter the challan was filed on 21.03.2007. After filing of the challan, the Petitioners, once again, have filed these petitions praying for quashing of the FIR, as well as, the challan. While praying for quashing of the FIR and the challan, Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate raised two fold arguments: (i) That no fresh material was collected by the Investigating Agency to induct the Petitioner in the criminal case. Reference was made to the report dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P -8) which is a communication from Technical Commentator -cum -Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur Drainage Circle, Ferozepur to the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh, in context to the present FIR, which is a response to a letter asking him for comments on the Police Report, S.E. ADC, Amritsar and Chief Engineer and Vigilance Report relating to the matter of embezzlement during the year 1999 -2000, which was a subject matter of FIR. The said Technical commentator -cum -Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur Drainage Circle, Ferozepur stated to have gone through the report and submitted his comments that there was no serious irregularity of any nature and the result of investigation is unfounded, incomplete and not a result of thorough investigation. It was further commented that there was no deficiency in execution of work. (ii) There were so many glaring discrepancies in the challan, which are against the facts of the present case and go a long way to proof the case of the Petitioner and make a reasonable ground for interference at this stage to quash the proceedings.;