Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Neeraj Gulati Son Of Shri R.C. Gulati - Appellant
Vs.
State Of H.P. Through Secretary (Home) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 CRPC No.224 of 2022
Decided On : 05-09-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate
For the Respondent:M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur, Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General, With Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General
Point of Law : 13.There is no provision in the statute of referring to someone connected with matter against whom no evidence is there that he has been involved in commission of offence as an accused, as a ‘suspect.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 and 319 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 406, 409, 411, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 13(I) d, 13(I) d (ii), 13 (I) (e) and 13(2) – Offence of Cheating – Criminal conspiracy - Criminal breach of trust – Charge sheeted - Suspect - Petitioner had worked for some time before registration of the FIR, as Company Secretary of said Company for a period of about fourteen months - At relevant time, Company was run and controlled, who was prime accused and also Managing Director of Company - As per Supplementary Charge Sheet, dated petitioner has been named as a ‘suspect’ in same, copy whereof is appended with petition as AnnexureP3 - Further, as per petitioner, it is evident from perusal of Charge Sheet that no evidence has come forth against petitioner to establish his involvement in offences mentioned in FIR and accordingly, he has not been cited as an accused - Grievance of petitioner is that act of respondents of mentioning the petitioner as a suspect in Supplementary Charge Sheet is illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to his legal rights and it is in this background that petition stands filed, praying for relief already mentioned hereinabove.
Finding of Court :
Court concurs fully with findings which have been returned by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay referred to hereinabove, in terms whereof, it has been held that no one can be referred to as a ‘suspect’ in Final Report, which is to be so filed by Investigating Officer, in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C - Court is of considered view that in terms of scheme of statute, Investigating Officer has to disclose the name of persons who are acquainted with facts of the in report, as also names of parties and he also has to clearly spell out name or names of accused in light of investigation, which stands carried out - 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 the word ‘suspect’ undoubtedly casts a stigma on such a person - Of course, 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 the procedure as is prescribed in Section 319 of Cr.P.C., can be resorted to.
Result : Petition stands disposed of
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 JudgeII, 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 AnnexureP3. Further, as per the petitioner, it is evident from the perusal of the Charge Sheet that no evidence has come forth 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 p
