Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Dinesh Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. - Applicant
Versus
State of M.P. & Anr. - Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No. 10475 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2018
For the Applicants : Shri Amit Lahoti
For the Respondent: Shri Devendra Chaubey
The judgment established the principle that the mandatory registration of FIR is required if the information discloses a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving misappropriation of public funds, and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the complaint does not affect the validity of the FIR.
Headnote:
FIR Quashment - Misappropriation of Funds - IPC 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 506 Part-2, 34 and SC/ST Act 3(1)(x) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered under various sections of IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The judgment referenced the principles laid down in various cases including Ramyash Tiwari, Priyanka Srivastava, Lalita Kumari, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, emphasizing the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The court also highlighted the non-quashable nature of criminal proceedings related to misappropriation of public funds.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were accused of misappropriating Panchayat funds by preparing a false muster roll and opening a forged account in the Post Office in the name of the complainant. The Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for FIR registration was challenged and subsequently set aside by the High Court. The complainant later sought to withdraw the complaint, but the police continued with the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR could not be quashed solely because the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was set aside on technical grounds. The subsequent withdrawal of the complaint and dismissal due to non-prosecution by the complainant did not affect the validity of the FIR, especially in cases involving misappropriation of public funds.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR, initially lodged in compliance with the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., would lose its effect when the Magistrate's order was set aside on technical grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint filed before the Magistrate still provided a valid basis for the police to continue with the investigation, as it disclosed a cognizable offence. The court emphasized the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence, as per the principles laid down in various judgments.
Final Decision: The application for FIR quashment failed, and the court dismissed the application, affirming the validity of the FIR and allowing the police to continue with the investigation.
1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of the FIR registered at Police Station Cantt. District Guna for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 506 Part-2, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that one Halkeram (who has not been made a respondent in the present case) had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 506 Part-2, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on the allegations, that he is a reputed member of the society and is an agriculturist by profession but in order to malign and misappropriate the Panchayat funds, the applicants prepared a false muster roll showing him to be a labourer and misappropriated a huge amount by showing the disbursement of salary/labour charges in the name of Halkeram/complainant. The applicant No.1 is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Raijhai, Police Station Cantt, District Guna, whereas the applicant No.2 is working as Postman in Post Office Dhamnar, P.S. Myana, District Guna. It was alleged that in connivance with the applicant No.2, the applicant opened a forged account in the Post Office, in the name of the complainant, and deposited a huge amount under the head of labour charges/salary and withdrew the same. About 6 to 7 years back, job card under the Rojgar Guarantee Yojana was issued in the name of the complainant, whereas the complainant is well reputed resident of the locality having 48 Bighas of irrigated agricultural land and the complainant is also having a tractor. Neither the complainant nor his wife has ever worked as labourer under the Rojgar Guarantee Yojana nor has ever received any salary/labour charges either in cash or through bank or Post Office. The complainant has also never opened any account in the Post Office but inspite of that, in the Post Office, Dhamnar, the applicants had opened a forged Account in the name of the complainant and by preparing the forged muster roll, a huge amount was deposited in the forged, Post Office account from the year 2008 to 2012 and thereafter, misappropriated the Government money, whereas the job card of the complainant is completely blank. The complainant got the information while he downloaded the job card from the internet. The Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and directed for registration of FIR.
3. The said order was challenged by the applicants by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.3685/2014. The said application was allowed by a common order dated 24.8.2015 with the following observations:
“11. If the impugned order is examined on the anvil of principles laid down in said cases, it will be clear that the court below has not applied its mind on this aspect at all. There is no finding that complainant has approached the SHO and higher authorities, as per section 154 CrPC. The court below has not applied its mind whether any such application under section 154(3) and (4) is filed by the complainant. Thus, the order impugned is not in consonance with the judgment passed by this Court in Ramyash Tiwari and Priyanka Srivastava (supra).
12. I am constrained to hold that the court below has passed the order dated 24.7.2014 without application of mind. Consequently, this order dated 24.7.2014 and other similar impugned orders in connected matters are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to rehear the complainant on his application under section 156(3) CrPC and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on merits.”
4. The order passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted back to
