B B Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.
(2.) Instant application was initially filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge VIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.09A/2010(R) by which the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. During the pendency of this case, the court below subsequently by order dated 14.09.2016 framed charge against this petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and same was also challenged by filing I.A. No.6601 of 2016 and additional prayer was made for quashing subsequent order of framing charge.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, this petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in Road Construction Department, Jamtara and as per allegation he connived with the other accused persons and committed criminal misconduct as well as counter signed the forged bitumen invoices submitted by the contractor as genuine, although no procurement of bitumen was made through the oil company. This allegation is not supported with the provisions of the P.W.D. Code as Executive Engineer is required to take necessary steps in this regard. The Rule 38 and 39 of the P.W.D. Code requires the Executive Engineer to see the correctness of the original records, receipts and correspondence as well as vouchers and he is also entrusted to carefully examine the books, returns and papers. This was not the business of this petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in this case by making allegation in the charge sheet that this petitioner has made endorsement that bitumen was genuine, procured from the Government Oil Company, although he has not made any such remarks, rather this petitioner has simply written "original bitumen challan serial no.1-17 submitted with the bills". Therefore, inference arrived at by the Investigating Officer is not correct. He also submitted that office of Executive Engineer issued the D.O. letter to the oil company for supply of bitumen to the contractor M/s Usha Consortium with direction that information for issuance of bitumen be also furnished to his office. This bitumen was to be utilized in the Government work. Learned counsel further submitted that it was the duty of Executive Engineer to verify the genuineness of the vouchers and the bitumen challans with the original vouchers issued by the oil company and the petitioner in no way was authorized to verify the genuineness and comparing of issuance of bitumen by the oil company. Lastly, he submitted that the Investigating Officer has found Executive Engineer liable for misconducts only and his matter was referred to the Department for initiating the regular departmental action with major penalty but made this petitioner and other as accused in this case. He relied on a decision in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another, 2009 2 SCC 370. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- 10. We may notice that in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. this Court has held (SCC pp. 642-43, paras 7-8) "7. It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial. 8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal Proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This Court therein noticed a large number of decisions to opine that whenever the High Court comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of court and that the ends of justice require that the proceedings should be quashed, it would not hesitate to do so. Learned counsel submitted that the Magistrate trying the case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that accused cannot approach High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial. The case of petitioner is fit case in which the charge could be quashed as the main person who was In-charge of the whole affair, was given clean chit by referring his matter for departmental action. The court below has relied on the information mentioned in the charge sheet that this petitioner had presented invoices before the Executive Engineer and the certification of genuineness was given by the then Junior Engineer which was counter signed by this petitioner as the then Assistant Engineer for passing those bills for payment by the Executive Engineer.;