The court established that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a prima facie case, affirming the validity of the FIR based on sufficient evidence of misappropriation and forgery.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No.4/14, dated 24.05.2014, registered at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC ”) and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (“in short P.C. Act”), against the petitioner and co-accused Kartar Chand and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was received by the Additional Director General of Police, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (“in short SV & ACB), Shimla (H.P.) regarding the misappropriation of government money worth Rs. 3,28,438/- (three lakhs twenty-eight thousand four hundred thirty eight). It was asserted that the Soil Conservation Department had sanctioned Rs. 5,20,000/- (five lakhs twenty thousand) for the construction of protection work in village Kholi Tehsil & District Kangra (H.P.). An amount of Rs. 3,28,438/- (three lakhs twenty-eight thousand four hundred thirty eight) was spent from 16^th June 2012 to 30^th June 2012 to oblige Kartar Chand. This work was carried out under the control and supervision of Kartar Chand, who was nominated as “Mate” by the Department. Kartar Chand constructed the wall to protect his house and property. He managed cement bags and misappropriated the money in connivance with the officials of the Department. The construction of the wall damaged the informant’s house. The masons shown to be working in the project had not worked. No muster roll/attendance register was prepared/supplied. The Department supplied 335 bags of cement, but the carriage charges were claimed for 453 bags. The carriage was approved @ Rs. 160/- per ton from Dehra to Kholi, whereas the cement was transported from Birta to Kholi. The police conducted a preliminary investigation and seized the record. It was found that no wall was constructed towards the house of Duni Chand Dakwal. Kartar Chand had drawn Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) as payment towards the wages of masons, but the masons said that they had not worked on the project, nor was any payment made to them. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The specimen signatures of the petitioner and Kartar Chand were taken for comparison. The specimen signatures of the masons did not match the specimen signatures put on the voucher. The signatures of Kartar Chand and Ravi Kant were found on the bill. Hence, the police submitted the charge sheet before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved from filing the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. It was asserted that the amount of Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was paid, which should be recovered from Kartar Chand. This recommendation was accepted by the Principal Secretary (Home/Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary (Agriculture) to recover the amount. Kartar Chand deposited the amount. However, the FIR was registered contrary to the initial recommendation. It violates the recommendation of the Principal Secretary (Home/Vigilance). No material was found against the petitioner. The evidence of the handwriting expert is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner. He could not expect to know masons personally. The complaint was filed by the complainant against Kartar Chand and not against the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State by filing a reply reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the investigation showed that an amount of Rs. 28,820/- (twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and twenty) was not d