FIR quashed as allegations fail to disclose prima facie cheating, forgery, or conspiracy; no dishonest inducement ab initio, no accused role in document alteration, supported by disciplinary closure crediting clerk's exonerating statement. (28 words)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.217 of 2023, dated 18.09.2023, under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner, who at the relevant time was Sub-Inspector in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that though petitioner was not entitled to House Rent Allowance, as he was living in his own house within the radius of 5 KM from the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, but yet in connivance with co-accused Manju Devi, who was also working as Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, he fraudulently got his name inserted in the order dated 17.11.2018, issued under the signatures of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, thereby authorizing HRA to some of the police officials on account of non-availability of Government accommodation at Bilaspur. Contents of the FIR, if read in their entirety, reveal that petitioner filed an application for grant of HRA, but since he was residing in his personal house situate within the radius of 5 KM from the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, he was not entitled to HRA. However, he, misusing his official position, prevailed upon Ms. Manju Devi i.e. Clerk, who allegedly without there being any authority, inserted the name of the petitioner in order dated 17.11.2018, issued under the signatures of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Though, above named Manju Devi claimed before the authorities that the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur had asked her to insert the name of the petitioner in order dated 17.11.2018, but such claim of her was seriously refuted by the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. In the afore background, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner as well as co-accused Manju Devi. Besides the criminal proceedings, as detailed hereinabove, the Department of police also conducted disciplinary proceedings.

3. The Disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide order dated 19.01.2023, closed the departmental proceedings and directed the petitioner herein to be careful in future. Since in afore disciplinary proceedings, an amount of Rs.27,600/-allegedly received by the petitioner as HRA, was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, he accordingly deposited the sum of Rs. 27, 600/-, but if aforesaid order is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggest that disciplinary authority gave credence to the statement of Lady ASI Manju, the then dealing hand in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, who had categorically stated that name of the petitioner was inserted in order dated 17.11.2018 at the instance of the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. Though, as per final inquiry report, disciplinary authority found that Inspector Parmjit Singh i.e. petitioner neither concealed any facts from the department regarding his posting nor misused his official position for getting HRA/HMA, but yet recovery of sum of Rs. 27, 600/- was ordered for