IMPORTANT POINT
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Angami, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondent No. 2.

2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, MES-243985 Shri Lekh Bahadur Bohara, JAA, has prayed for quashing the FIR of Urban P.S. Case No. 21/2021, under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Sections 11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’), dated 20.04.2021.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Shri Ravi Tomar, Major, Garrison Engineer, GE 868 EWS of Rangapahar Military Station, on 08.04.2021.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated herein below:

“(i) During the Summary General Court Martial in respect of IC-71216L Ex. Major Jaspreet Singh Duggal of GE 868 Engineer Works Section, attached to Headquarter 44 Mountain Brigade, from 02.07.2016 to 09.05.2017, it has come to the notice of the authority that MES-243985 Shri Lekh Bahadur Bohara, JAA (LDC) had transferred an amount of Rs. 3,19,000/-from his bank account to the bank account of Ex. Major Jaspreet Singh Duggal. MES-243985 Shri Lekh Bahadur Bohara, JAA (LDC) had fail to give any satisfactory explanation not only for the deposit made by him in the account of Ex. Major Jaspreet Singh Duggal, but also failed to explain how substantial amount of cash came to be deposited in his account on various occasions, which was beyond his known source of income.

(ii) Though departmental action was taken against MES243985 Shri Lekh Bahadur Bohara, JAA (LDC), yet, it does not exonerate him from criminal liability under the P.C. Act. Accordingly, as per direction of competent authority, (Headquarters 3 Corps), an FIR has been lodged against MES-243985 Shri Lekh Bahadur Bohara, JAA (LDC) of GE (Project), under the provisions of the P.C. Act and IPC at police station, Dimapur, to discharge his criminal liability.

(iii) Accordingly, Shri Ravi Tomar, Major, Garrison Engineer, the respondent No. 2 herein, had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Sub-Urban Police Station, Dimapur, on 08.04.2021. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-charge of Sub-Urban Police Station, Dimapur has registered a case, being SBN P.S. No. 21/2021, under Sections 11/13 of the P.C. Act, read with Section 420 of the IPC and endorsed one Shri Ketuokhrilie Metho, ACP ‘D’ division, for investigation.”

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, for quashing the aforesaid FIR on the following grounds:

(i) That, the allegation made in the FIR is totally false, concocted and baseless and made up by the respondent No. 2 with some ulterior motive.

(ii) That, the allegation made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, the same failed to constitute any offence under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Sections 11/13 of the P.C. Act, and on such count the FIR is liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

(ii) That, the Investigating Officer had acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested upon him in registering the case and it was lodged only to malign the petitioner as the FIR does not indicate any financial loss of the department and the aforesaid act of the petitioner is a case of clear violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(iii) That, while the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and concluded on 08.03.2019, the FIR was lodged on 20.04.2021, after delay of about two years and no explanation has been offered for the delay, and thereby occasioned failure of justice and caused irreparable loss or injury to the petitioner.

(iv) That, the Investigating Officer had committed g