Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 2185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Krishan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-14793-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of admissible evidence and the abuse of process of the Court in determining the continuation of proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to establish the commission of an offence and the application of relevant legal principles in quashing proceedings.
Headnote:
Information Technology Amendment Act - Quashing of FIR No.164 dated 26.05.2019 under Sections 66, 66b, 66d of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement, admissibility of conversations, and the abuse of process of the Court. Key legal provisions such as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were considered in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR, report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., charge-sheet, and subsequent proceedings arising from the case. The petitioner was implicated in a case involving leaking of examination papers for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The evidence against the petitioner included telephonic conversations and a disclosure statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner, including conversations and the disclosure statement, was insufficient to establish the commission of any offence. The court held that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner alone.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence to implicate the petitioner in the case of leaking examination papers and the admissibility of conversations and disclosure statements as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the evidentiary value of disclosure statements and the abuse of process of the Court. The court emphasized that the evidence on record did not establish any offence against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR, report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., charge-sheet, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner alone, while allowing the proceedings to continue against the other accused in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the quashing of FIR No.164 dated 26.05.2019 under Sections 66, 66b, 66d of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Rewari City, District Rewari (Annexure P-1), the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), the impugned charge-sheet dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-12) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that the impugned FIR came to be registered on 26.05.2019 on the basis of a written complaint of the complainant Inspector Anand Kumar in which he stated that he was performing his examination duty at Jain Girls Senior Secondary School, Rewari, where EASI Balwant Singh, Incharge, Cyber Cell, Rewari reached and told him that on 24.05.2019, an E-mail had been received on the official E-mail id of Superintendent of Police, Rewari, whereby it had been stated that an attempt would be made by certain elements to leak out the answer-key of the examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar being organised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be known as 'the HSSC') on 26.05.2019 and the answer-key shall be circulated to the aspirants.
On this basis, the impugned FIR came to be registered against eight persons, namely, Jaiveer son of Rajinder Singh, Kuldeep son of Roshan Lal, Dinesh son of Rajinder Singh, Manoj Kumar @ Monu son of Rajinder Singh, Pankaj son of Jai Bhagwan, Anil, Deepak son of Rajinder Singh and Neeraj son of Mahavir. A copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the petition. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any role attributed to him.
3. During the course of surveillance of some mobile numbers, it was found that Dinesh Kumar son of Rajinder Singh was using mobile No.90508-07900 and was talking with Akhil son of Varinder. During the course of the telephonic conversation, Dinesh also spoke with Manoj @ Monu. As per the contents of that conversation, reference has been made to the name of the petitioner. The said conversation took place at about 11.40 a.m. on 25.05.2019. A copy of the transcript of the telephonic conversation dated 25.05.2019 is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
It also transpired that the petitioner had spoken to the accused Akhil @ Kheela on 23.05.2019, 25.05.2019 and 26.05.2019 though there is no recording/transcript of the conversation between the two.
Pursuant to the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement of Akhil was recorded, as per which, the petitioner was one of the accused who had solved the paper. The copy of the disclosure statement is attached as Annexure R-1 to the State reply dated 03.12.2021.
Based on the aforementioned evidence, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. Ultimately, a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against 12 accused, namely, Jaiveer son of Rajinder Singh, Dinesh son of Rajinder Singh, Deepak son of Rajinder, Kuldeep son of Roshan Lal, Ravish son of Rohtash, Krishan (petitioner) son of Kartar, Pankaj son of Jai Bhagwan, Akhil son of Varinder, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Gaya Parshad, Jasbir son of Kehar Singh, Rajiv Bhutani son of Baldev Raj Bhutani, Satish Kumar Rathi son of Ramphal, and a report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted against accused Manoj Kumar @ Monu son of Rajinder Singh.
As per investigation, two candidates/accused, namely, Dinesh son of Rajinder Singh and Manoj Kumar @ Monu son of Rajinder Singh were taking the exam for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The facilitators for leaking of the paper and passing on the solved paper to the aforementioned two candidates were Deepak Son of Rajinder Singh, Kuldeep son of Roshan Lal, Neeraj son of Mahavir, Rajiv Bhutani (since died) son of Baldev Raj Bhutani, Jaiveer son of Rajinder Singh, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Gaya P
