Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Neeraj Gulati – Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. through Secretary (Home)
to the Government of Himachal Pradesh
and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr.P.C.No.224 of 2022
Decided on 5.9.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406, 409, 411, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218 and 120B read with Sections 13(I) d, 13(I) d (ii), 13 (I) (e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Petition for quashing/deleting name of petitioner wherever it is shown as a suspect in supplementary charge-sheet – In terms of scheme of statute, Investigating Officer has to disclose name of persons who are acquainted with facts of case in report, as also names of parties and he also has to clearly spell out names of accused in light of investigation – However, there is no provision in statute of referring to someone connected with the matter against whom no evidence is there, as a ‘suspect – When in course of investigation, Investigating Officer has not found anything incriminating against someone, then reflecting him or her as a ‘suspect’ in Investigation Report, is not acceptable in law, as word ‘suspect’ casts stigma on such a person – In course of trial, if Court comes to conclusion that someone other than those named as accused in report, may also be guilty of commission of offence, then procedure as is prescribed in Section 319 of Cr.P.C., can be resorted to – Expunction ordered. (Paras 9, 13 and 14)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:—
(a) That the Hon’ble Court pass a direction, order for quashing/deleting the name of the petitioner wherever it is shown as a Suspect in the supplementary charge sheet i.e. Annexure P3 and discharge the petitioner with respect to the offences mentioned in the FIR 09/2016 dated 03.04.2016 P.S. CID Bharari, Shimla (Annexure P1).”
2. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was registered in Police Station CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P., i.e. FIR No.09/2016, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 411, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(I) d, 13(I) d (ii), 13 (I) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the Indian Technomac Company Limited and its officials. The petitioner had worked for some time before the registration of the FIR, as the Company Secretary of the said Company for a period of about fourteen months till 16.03.2011. At the relevant time, the Company was run and controlled by Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who was the prime accused and also the Managing Director of the Company. The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was allowed and anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on 19.08.2019. The Investigating Agency filed Supplementary Charge Sheet, dated 19.03.2020 in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer verified that the petitioner had worked as a Company Secretary for a brief period of fourteen months upto 16.03.2011 in the Company run and controlled by Rakesh Kumar Sharma. In terms of the Charge Sheet, dated 22.11.2018, the respondent has mentioned therein that the Company accounts were functioning properly till 31.03.2012. According to the petitioner, he was not in the employment of the accused Company after 16.03.2011, i.e. much before 31.03.2012. The petitioner claims to be a Company Secretary, who is also enrolled as a Lawyer. He has been attending the learned Trial Court physically since its reopening, though he has not been summoned by the learned Trial Court. This is in terms of the directions which have been passed by this Court in the bail petition filed by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that as per the Supplementary Charge Sheet, dated 19.03.2020, the petitioner has been named as a ‘suspect’ in the same, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure-P3. Further, as per the petitioner, it is evident from the perusal of the Charge Sheet that no evidence has comeforth against the petitioner to establish his involvement in the offences mentioned in the FIR and accordingly, he has not been cited as an accused. The grievance of the petitioner is that the act of the respondents of mentioning the petitioner as a suspect in the Supplementary Charge Sheet is illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to his legal rights and it is in this background that the petition stands filed, praying for the relief already mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that naming of the petitioner as a ‘suspect’ in the Police Report, filed under the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that it is settled law that the trial is always of an accused and once the investigation has demonstrated that the petitioner is not an accused and he has not done anything so as to make him an accused in terms of the sections mentioned in the FIR, reflection of the name of the petitioner as a ‘suspect’ in the Charge Sheet is complete miscarriage of justice and is a travesty of justice and in case the FIR in issue is not ordered to be quashed against the petitioner, then the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgm
When in course of investigation, Investigating Officer has not found anything incriminating against someone, then reflecting him or her as a ‘suspect’ in Investigation Report, is not acceptable in la....
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is independent and can be exercised when it appears from the evidence his involvement in the alleged crime irrespective of whether any protest complaint was maintained against him....
Point of law : In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the ....
There is no legal bar against further investigation. Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code does not restrict reopening of the case in which charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance ....
The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and with caution, and requires strong and cogent evidence against the person being summoned.
The investigation of a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate is illegal, and politically motivated prosecutions should be quashed.
The accused has no right to dictate the investigating agency or method of investigation, and the plea of alibi must be substantiated with cogent evidence.
The Magistrate has the power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., but this power should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Magistrate must be satisfied that a prima fa....
A magistrate's acceptance of a final report is valid if based on a proper assessment of the evidence. Investigating officers maintain the discretion to prioritize relevant evidence. Civil court judgm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
