Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Bindeshwar Prasad Singh @ Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, S/o. Late Dodraj Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. M.P. No. 3463 of 2023
Decided On : 26-06-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [QUASHING OF CHARGES] - [Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482; Indian Penal Code, Sections 409, 120B] - [The court discussed the application of Section 482 of the CrPC, which allows for quashing of proceedings in cases where no prima facie case exists. It emphasized that the allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy were serious and warranted a trial. The court interpreted the necessity of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC, concluding that such sanction was not required post-retirement for the petitioner. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Priyanka Srivastava's case regarding the necessity of affidavits in complaints, clarifying that the ruling did not apply retrospectively to this case. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the charges.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Junior Engineer, was accused of misappropriating government funds amounting to Rs.61,951 from a project budget of Rs.9,00,000. The charges were framed after a police investigation substantiated the allegations. The petitioner contended that the charges were false and that he had not been subject to any departmental proceedings during his service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and warranted a trial. It ruled that the petitioner’s claims regarding the lack of prior sanction for prosecution and the absence of an affidavit supporting the complaint did not merit quashing the charges. The court emphasized that the defense could be presented during the trial rather than at this preliminary stage.
Issues: Whether the charges against the petitioner could be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC, and whether prior sanction for prosecution was necessary given the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy were serious enough to proceed to trial. It clarified that the requirement for prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC did not apply post-retirement and that the absence of an affidavit in the complaint did not invalidate the proceedings as the complaint was referred to police before the relevant Supreme Court ruling.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, allowing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order framing charge dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Sadar P.S. Case No.459 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.392 of 2023 whereby and where under the charges have been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 409, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and consequential relief.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Rural Development Special Division, Hazaribagh. The petitioner-public servant was allotted total Rs.9,00,000/- for the project of construction of Tehsil Kutchery Building, Bishnugarh. The petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons with the common object of such conspiracy, committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating a sum of Rs.61,951/- from the said Government money; entrusted to the petitioner. Police took up the investigation of the case and after finding the allegation against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge-sheet against him,. Consequent upon the same cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. Charges were framed on 12th July, 2023 and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far one prosecution witness has been examined during the trial of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner during the entire service period and now, he is superannuated from the service with effect from 31.01.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner admits that while posted as Junior Engineer in the Office of Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Hazaribagh, the petitioner was allotted work to construct Tehsil Kutchery Buildings at Tati Jharia, Bishnugarh and Banaso. It is also submitted that the petitioner admits of having received the advance of Rs.10,00,000/- from the department and the work was verified and checked by the department and the same was found correct.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was transferred from Hazaribagh to the Office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Medininagar on dated 20.03.2009 and handed over the charge and joined the transferred post at Medininagar. In this case, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and released on bail on 20.12.2022. No information was given by the department in the First Information Report regarding the 3rd work situated at Tati Jharia. As per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the department, it is apparent that an amount of Rs.4,23,925/- has been adjusted/set off by the advance payment made for construction of Tehsil Kutchery Buildings at Bishnugarh and Banaso and a sum of Rs.4,15,282/- has been adjusted/set off against the advance payment made for the construction of the Tehsil Kutchery at Banaso and a sum of Rs.3,48,634/- has been adjusted/set off against the amount paid for the construction of Tehsil Kutchery Buildings at Tati Jharia.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner incurred total expenditure of Rs.11,87,839 against the advance of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also submitted that the wife of the petitioner deposited Rs.61,951/- out of fear in favour of the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Hazaribagh and the complaint filed by the informant under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the informant and the same is bad in law in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
The court established that serious allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy justify proceeding to trial, and that prior sanction for prosecution is not required for a retired public ser....
No prima facie case for breach of trust established against the petitioner as he lacked direct control over the misappropriated funds, leading to quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court held that allegations of misappropriation and abuse of power by a public servant warrant investigation, and an FIR should not be quashed if it discloses a prima facie case.
The mere breach of contract does not establish a case for criminal offences of cheating or breach of trust without evidence of deception or proper entrustment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule, and the appreciation of evidence is n....
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
