SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Krishna Kumar Gupta has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, Camp Sardar Shahar, District Churu in revision whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sardar Shahar, District Churu in connection with FR No. 33/2009 filed by the Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu in FIR No. 70/2002 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC.
(2.) The respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against the present petitioner who was, at the relevant point of time, posted as a Junior Engineer on the Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Rawatsar, alleging irregularities and fraud against the petitioner during construction of sub-branch of the canal from K.M. 13 to 15 and K.M. 10 to 13.765. The complainant alleged that the construction work was completed in April, 2005 and the accused, who was in charge of the entire construction project, was required to deposit the dismantled pipeline in the Rawatsar Canal Colony officer but, he did not account for 8 Inch M.S. pipes measuring almost 3765 meters and thereby, caused loss to the tune of rupees 23.72 lacs to the Government. Separate complaints to this effect were submitted by the respondent No. 2 complainant at the Police Station Bhanipura and so also to the petitioner's departmental authorities. On the basis of such complaint, an FIR No. 70/2002 came to be registered and investigation was commenced. The investigating officer, after thorough investigation, came to a conclusion that the accused petitioner handed over the extracted pipeline to Harphool Singh and that even if the allegations of the complainant were to be accepted, at best, the department could have effected recovery of the shortfall from the petitioner. Accordingly, a negative final report was submitted by in the court concerned. However, the learned Magistrate did not agree with the conclusions drawn by the I.O. and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC by the order dated 20.07.2011. The said order was challenged in revision which too was dismissed by the order dated 09.09.2016. These two orders are under challenge in the instant misc. petition.
(3.) Shri Sabbir Khan learned counsel representing the petitioner has placed on record, a copy of the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the competent authority after holding a departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for the very same allegations which form the substratum of the present criminal case. The inquiry officer, considered an identical set of charges and held that the pipes in question were handed over by the petitioner to Harphool Singh who, in turn, handed the same over to Suresh Kumar Chalana and that the pipes in question are still available with the department. Accordingly, the entire charge-sheet was dropped and the petitioner was exonerated. Shri Sabbir Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urges that the I.O. had given substantial reasons for submitting a negative final report in the matter. The pipes in question were handed over by the petitioner to Shri Harphool Singh and this fact has been duly established and verified in investigation and also during the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. The complainant has failed to provide any evidence to show that the petitioner did not account for the pipes in question or indulged in defalcation. He contends that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in the Enquiry Report pursuant to the enquiry held against the petitioner are conclusive on the issue that the petitioner is not guilty of the charge attributed to him in the present criminal case because the allegations in both the forums are exactly identical. He thus craves acceptance of the instant misc. petition and urges that the impugned orders and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner amount to a gross abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.;