Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Jagmohan Saggar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-32204 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devyani Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional AG Punjab.
The court ruled that administrative errors regarding salary increments do not warrant criminal liability and emphasized the civil nature of the dispute, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120B - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of forgery regarding special increment granted - Petitioner's FIR quashed due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations of criminal culpability, deemed a civil issue. (Paras 1, 11)
(B) Legal principles regarding delay in prosecution and distinction between civil and criminal matters - The court noted that mere administrative errors do not warrant criminal prosecution if the issue is resolved through civil remedies. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of obtaining a special increment through forgery, based on a complaint filed years after the increment was granted, and where recovery had already been made. (Paras 2, 3.4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantive evidence supporting the claims of forgery and viewed the issue as civil in nature, warranting quashing of the FIR. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the allegations constituted a criminal offense or were merely civil errors. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that administrative errors that have been rectified through civil means do not support a criminal FIR, especially in the absence of clear evidence. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed and all proceedings in relation thereto dismissed. (Para 11)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of fir related to forgery (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments challenging the validity of fir (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's considerations on procedural issues (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. issue of verifying signatures in context to fir (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. civil nature of the dispute favored over criminal culpability (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. order for quashing of fir issued (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
Petition herein is under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.316 dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana City, along with all subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof, including challan dated 19.08.2012 (Annexure P-3).
2. Per prosecution version, a complaint dated 13.12.2022 was received from the Additional Deputy Commissioner Development, Ludhiana, to register an FIR against the petitioner regarding special increments taken by him on 01.04.1988. It was submitted that the then A.D.C. (D), Sh. A.R. Darshi, PCS, submitted a complaint on 09.01.2002 to the Joint Development Commissioner and Special Secretary, Punjab, Chandigarh, stating that he did not grant this special increment to the employee. The said employee obtained a special increment by committing forgery of his signatures. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, sent an inquiry report to the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab. After reviewing the report at the head office, it was deemed insufficient. The head office forwarded the case to the Director, State Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Chandigarh, for an inquiry and to verify forged signatures. The Director, State Forensic Scientific Laboratory, in a letter dated 27.06.2011, found the petitioner to be accused of obtaining a special increment by committing forgery of signatures. The Joint Development Commissioner and Special Secretary, Punjab, decided to register an FIR against the petitioner (Superintendent Retired) and it was so done.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked as an Investigator in the office of respondent No. 2, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana. He retired on 28.02.2011 as a Superintendent. Allegedly, the petitioner was granted a special increment on 01.04.1988 by Sh. A.R. Darshi, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development). However, after a period of 14 years, in his complaint dated 09.01.2022, Sh. Darshi alleged that he never granted any such increment to the petitioner, and the petitioner obtained it by forging his signatures.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the prosecution submitted a challan dated 19.08.2012 in court merely based on the FSL report dated 27.06.2011, without substantial proof demonstrating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime.
3.2. He asserts that while the petitioner was posted as an Investigator, he was granted his first special increment on 20.06.1988 by Sh. A.R. Darshi, retroactively from 01.04.1988. Subsequently, another special increment was awarded by Sh. Raminder Singh, IAS, on 01.10.1995, and the last special increment was granted to the petitioner by Sh. A. VenuPrashad, IAS, on 01.07.1997. Other employees, namely, Sh. Ramesh Kapoor, APO (M), and Sh. Naresh Pandey, Daftari, were also granted special increments on 01.10.1995 and 01.03.1980, respectively.
3.3. In a letter dated 15.11.2001 (Annexure P-4), the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD)-cum-Special Secretary requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ludhiana, to provide information regarding the officers who granted the aforementioned increments to the petitioner and the other two employees. Upon receiving a letter dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure P-5), all the aforementioned increments, including those awarded to the petitioner, were withdrawn by an order dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure P-
