Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Rajendra Kumar Vani, JJ.
Vikas Rajoria v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 32300 of 2023 (Gwalior); Decided on 23.4.2024
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of power -- Court would not ordinarily embark upon inquiry to ascertain whether evidence is reliable or not -- inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and carefully with caution -- at the same time, S. 482 empowers Court to prevent abuse of process of Court -- FIR required to be quashed when Court comes to conclusion that allowing criminal prosecution to continue would be abuse of process of Court. (2013) 9 SCC 293, Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 decided on 8.8.2023, (2013) 3 SCC 330 and 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 followed. [Paras 7 & 11]
(2) Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M. P.) -- Ss. 7, 12 and 13(3) -- M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 -- S.4 -- unless there is consent or approval of investigation by Lokayukt for specified nature of offences as contemplated in S. 3 of Act of 1947, any act of SPE at variance with decision of Lokayukt or in absence thereof, shall be contrary to scheme of Act, particularly Ss. 7, 12, 13 of Adhiniyam of 1981 and S. 4 of Act of 1947, and thus unsustainable. [Para 15]
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) -- M. P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 -- S. 4 -- M. P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 -- Ss. 7, 12 and 13(3) -- quashing of FIR -- identical complaints submitted before Lokayukt and Special Police Establishment in 2013-14 regarding misappropriation of public fund, financial indiscipline, preparation of fraudulent muster-rolls etc. -- aforesaid documents containing these allegations were also part of departmental enquiry done under supervision of Lokayukt -- scrutinized and considered in enquiry -- enquiry conducted by Lokayukt has binding effect on complaint received by SPE -- Lokayukt approved closure on 19.3.2020 and intimated closure vide letter dated 3.6.2020 -- on 30.6.2023, almost 9 years after was complaint received, SPE registered impugned FIR for aforesaid offences -- no mention in FIR regarding conduction and closure of enquiry by Lokayukt -- clearly shows that material facts have been suppressed while lodging FIR -- FIR must contain all these facts and grounds available to SPE for lodging this FIR de hors conclusion of Lokayukt on closure of enquiry on analogous complaint -- facts mentioned in FIR mere reproduction of complaint, charges framed, findings recorded in departmental enquiry, statements of witnesses recorded in departmental enquiry, etc. -- does not seem that any further or independent inquiry has been conducted by SPE -- no reasonable cause assigned for lodging FIR after delay of 9 years -- after conduction and closure of full-fledged departmental enquiry and exoneration in the matter, no criminal proceeding can be launched against petitioner on same set of facts and material -- no offence u/s. 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s. 120B of IPC made out against petitioner -- FIR quashed. (2021) 5 SCC 435, 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 and (2020) 9 SCC 636 followed. AIR 1998 SC 889, (2014) 2 SCC 1, (2003) 6 SCC 175, (2010) 6 SCC 1, AIR 2021 SC 1918, W. P. No. 16863 of 2007 decided on 29.4.2011 (Jabalpur) and Cr. M. C. No. 7542 of 2018 decided on 27.8.2021 (Ker.) distinguished. 2022 SCC Online SC 1634, (2022) 5 SCC 639, (2009) 3 SCC 355, 2002 (2) MPLJ 264, 2022 (4) JLJ 246, W. P. (Cr.) No. 781 of 2021 decided on 14.10.2022 (Del.) and 2023 PHHC 146633 referred to. [Paras 19, 20, 22 25, 26, 30 & 35]
(4) Departmental Enquiry -- criminal proceeding on same set of facts and material -- after conduction and closure of full-fledged departmental enquiry and exoneration in the matter, no criminal proceeding can be launched against petitioner on same set of facts and material. (2020) 9 SCC 636 followed. [Para 30]
(5) Criminal Trial -- departmental enquiry on same set of facts and material -- after conduction and closure of full-fledged departmental enquiry and exoneration in the matter, no criminal proceeding can be launched against petitioner on same set of facts and material. (2020) 9 SCC 636 followed. [Para 30]
(6) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 17A -- bar of S. 17A -- approval of competent authority is imperative for enquiry. Criminal Petition No. 531 of 2022 decided on 4.7.2023 (Kar.) and 2023 (1) JLJ 165 relied on. [Para 31]
(7) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 17A -- bar of S. 17A -- applicability -- S. 17A introduced in year 2018 while matter related to year 2006 -- held -- incident of 2006-09, complaint made in 2013 -- 14, but no action taken by SPE before 2023 -- during 9 years from 2014 to 2023, no separate or dedicated enquiry before lodging FIR -- bar would apply. (1972) 3 SCC 89, Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2024 decided on 16.1.2024 (SC) and 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 followed. [Para 33]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & lkekU;r% U;k;ky; ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, tk¡p vkjaHk ugha djsxk fd lk{; fo'oluh; gS ;k ugha & varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ferO;;rk ls rFkk lrdZrkiwoZd lko/kkuh ls ç;qä dh tkuk gksrh gS & mlds lkFk gh] /kkjk 482 U;k;ky; dks U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k dk nq:I;ksx jksdus ds fy, l{ke cukrh gS & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rc vfHk[kafMr djuk vko';d tc U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps fd nkafMd vfHk;kstu pyus nsuk U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k dk nq:I;ksx gksxkA ¼2013½ 9 ,llhlh 293] nkafMd vihy Ø- 2341 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 8-8-2023A ¼2013½ 3 ,llhlh 330 rFkk 1992 ,llhlh ¼fØ-½ 426 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 11½
¼2½ yksdk;qä ,oa mi&yksdkqä vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 7] 12 rFkk 13¼3½ & e-ç- fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 4 & tc rd lu~ 1947 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 esa ;Fkk vuq/;kr fofufnZ"V ç—For the Respondent : ds vijk/kksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, yksdk;qä dh lgefr ;k vuqeksnu ugha gks] yksdk;qä ds fofu'p; ls fHkUu ;k mlds vHkko esa] fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk dk dksbZ Hkh —R; vf/kfu;e dh ;kstuk ds çfrdwy gksxk] fof'k"Vr% lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7] 12] 13 rFkk lu 1947 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds] vkSj blfy, fLFkj j[kus ;ksX; ughaA ¼iSjk 15½
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½ rFkk 13¼2½ & e-ç- fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 4 & e-ç- yksdk;qä ,oa mi&yksdkqä vf/kfu;e] 1981 & /kkjk 7] 12 rFkk 13¼3½ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & lu~ 2013-14 esa yksdk;qä vkSj fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk ds le{k yksd fuf/k ds nqfoZfu;ksx foÙkh; vuq'kklughurk] diViw.kZ eLVj jksy rS;kj fd, tkus vkfn ds ckjs esa ,d&tSlh f'kdk;rsa dh xbZ & ftu iwoksZDr nLrkostksa esa ;g vfHkdFku varfoZ"V Fks og yksdk;qä ds I;Zos{k.k esa dh xbZ foHkkxh; tk¡p dk Hkh Hkkx Fks & tk¡p esa mudh laoh{kk vkSj foospu fd;k x;k
& yksdk;qä }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p dk fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk dks çkIr f'kdk;r ij vkc)dj çHkko gksrk gS -- yksdk;qä us 19-3-2020 dks lekiu dk vuqeksnu fd;k rFkk i= fnukad 3-6-2020 }kjk lekiu lalwfpr fd;k & 30-6-2023 dks] f'kdk;r çkIr gksus ds yxHkx 9 o"kZ I'pkr fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk us iwoksZä vijk/kksa ds fy, vkf{kIr çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iath—r dh & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa yksdk;qä }kjk tk¡p fd, tkus rFkk mlds lekiu dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha & Li"Vr% nf'kZr fd çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djrs le; rkfRod rF;ksa dks fNik;k x;k & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa ;g lHkh rF; vkSj le:I f'kdk;r ij dh xbZ t‚p ds lekiu ds yksdk;qä ds fu"d"kZ ls vlac) ;g çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk dks miyC/k vk/kkj varfoZ"V gksuk vko';d & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr rF; foHkkxh; t‚Appellant dh f'kdk;r] fojfpr vkjksiksa] vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kksaZ] foHkkxh; tk¡p esa vfHkfyf[kr lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa vkfn dk çR;qRiknu ek= & çrhr ugha gksrk fd fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk }kjk vkxs ;k Lora= dksbZ tk¡p dh xbZ & 9 o"kZ ds foyac ds I'pkr~ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds fy, dksbZ ;qfä;qä dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k & ifjiw.kZ foHkkxh; tk¡p fd, tkus vkSj mlds lekiu ij ekeys esa foeqä fd, tkus ds mijkar] rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ds mlh leqPp; ij ;kph ds fo:) nkafMd dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ugha dh tk ldrh & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½] 13¼2½ ds v/khu rFkk naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 120[k ds v/khu ;kph ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k fl) ugha & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA ¼2021½ 5 ,llhlh 435] 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1732 rFkk ¼2020½ 9 ,llhlh 636 vuqlfjrA ,vkbvkj 1998 ,llh 889] ¼2014½ 2 ,llhlh 1] ¼2003½ 6 ,llhlh 175] ¼2010½ 6 ,llhlh 1] ,vkbvkj 2021 ,llh 1918] ;kfpdk Ø- 16863 lu~ 2007 fu.khZr fnukad 29-4-2011 ¼tcyiqj½ rFkk lhvkj- ,e- lh- Ø- 7542 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 27-8-2021 ¼dsjy½ çHksfnrA 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1634] ¼2022½ 5 ,llhlh 639] ¼2009½ 3 ,llhlh 355] 2002 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 264] 2022 ¼4½ ts,yts 246, fjV ;kfpdk ¼nkafMd½ Ø- 781 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 14-10-2022 ¼fnYyh½ rFkk 2023 ih,p,plh 146633 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19] 20] 22 25] 26] 30 ,oa 35½
¼4½ foHkkxh; t‚Appellant & rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ds mlh leqPp; ij nkafMd dk;Zokgh & ifjiw.kZ foHkkxh; tk¡p fd, tkus vkSj mlds lekiu ij ekeys esa foeqä fd, tkus ds mijkar] rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ds mlh leqPp; ij ;kph ds fo:) nkafMd dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2020½ 9 ,llhlh 636 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 30½
¼5½ nkafMd fopkj.k & rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ds mlh leqPp; ij foHkkxh; t‚Appellant & ifjiw.kZ foHkkxh; tk¡p fd, tkus vkSj mlds lekiu ij ekeys esa foeqä fd, tkus ds mijkar] rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ds mlh leqPp; ij ;kph ds fo:) nkafMd dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2020½ 9 ,llhlh 636 vuqlfjrA [iSjk 30
¼6½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 17d & /kkjk 17d dk otZu & tk¡p ds fy, l{ke çkf/kdkjh dk vuqeksnu vfuok;Z gSA nkafMd ;kfpdk Ø- 531 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 4-7-2023 ¼dukZ-½ rFkk 2023 ¼1½ ts,yts 165 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 31½
¼7½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 17d & /kkjk 17d dk otZu & ykxw gksuk & /kkjk 17d o"kZ 2018 esa iqu%Lfkkfir tcfd ekeyk o"kZ 2006 ls lacaf/kr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ?kVuk 2006&09 dh] f'kdk;r 2013&14 esa dh xbZ] ijarq fo'ks"k iqfyl Lfkkiuk }kjk 2023 ls iwoZ dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh xbZ & 2014 ls 2023 rd 9 o"kZ ds nkSjku] çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds iwoZ dksbZ i`Fkd~ ;k lefiZr tk¡p ugha & otZu ykxw gksxkA ¼1972½ 3 ,llhlh 89] nkafMd vihy Ø- 279 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 16-1-2024 ¼,llh½ rFkk 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1732 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33½
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR bearing crime No.138 of 2023 registered at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Amendment Act, 2018 and section 120-B of IPC.
2. The facts giving rise to this M.Cr.C. in brief are that a scheme was floated by the State of Madhya Pradesh for plantation of Jatropha on both the sides of Chambal canal at District Sheopur. The scheme was launched under MNREGA in the year 2006. The work included procurement of saplings, plantation and supervision of the saplings, planted for a period of three years from 2006 to 2009. Petitioner Vikas Rajoria joined as Sub-Divisional Officer in Water Resources Department, Sheopur in March, 2007. The Petitioner among other works was entrusted with the work of rehabilitation and modernization of Chambal canal under the aforesaid scheme.
2.1 A complaint regarding Jatropha plantation work was lodged by complainant Tulsi Narayan Meena in the office of Lokayukta on the allegations that fund of Rs.3.45 crores has been misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner and other officers while preparing estimates, technical sanction, issuing supply orders of plants, preparing muster rolls, filling M.B., making valuation and thereby they committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act with criminal conspiracy for commission of said offence. The complainant alleged inter alia that work has not been executed in proper manner and thus resulted in loss of Rs.3.45 crores of the public exchequer. The said complaint was registered as complaint No.314/2013 in Lokayukta office.
2.2 Simultaneously, on such complaint a department enquiry was initiated against 24 delinquent engineers including the petitioner by the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department. Chief Engineer, Yamuna Basin, Gwalior, was appointed as enquiry officer in that departmental enquiry.
2.3 All aspects which find a mention in the instant FIR were considered for framing charge in the departmental enquiry. However, no charges were found proved against the petitioner and 23 other delinquent employees. As a consequence, petitioner and 23 other delinquent employees were exonerated of the charges pertaining to irregularity, financial misappropriation and misconduct, on merits.
2.4 Opinion of Rural Development Department was also sought on the departmental enquiry report. The point of disagreement by the Rural Development Department reads as under:--
^^1- tsVªksQk ikS/kk jksi.k esa fdlh fo'ks"k rduhdh Kku dh vko';drk ugha crk;h xbZ gSA ijEijkxr :I ls flapkbZ ifj;kstukvksa ds izkDdyu esa “M Ptantation Head” dk izko/kku jgk gS foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk bl en esa jkf'k dk izko/kku dj IykaVs'ku djk;k tkrk jgk gS] rks fQj mldk ;g rdZ dSls Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd og o`{kkjksi.k rduhdh ls okfdQ ugha FkkA
2- tSVªkQk o`{kkjksi.k ds IykaVs'ku esa ;kstuk vof/k ds I'pkr~ ikS/kk laj{k.k dh jkf'k izko/kku ugha fd;k tkuk oLrqr% vipkfj;ksa dh gh Hkwy gSA vipkfj;ksa dk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd og LohÑr dk;Z ds izkDdyu dk Hkyh&Hkk¡For the Respondent : v/;;u dj gh o`{kkjksi.k dk;Z dks izkjEHk djrs ;fn izkDdyu muds }kjk fufeZr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA rc Hkh dk;Z izkjEHk djus ds iwoZ mudks bl rF; ls l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks voxr djk;k tkuk Fkk ,oa iqujh{kr izkDdyu dks izLrqr djuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd muds }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA
3- jkstxkj ewyd dk;ksZa dk izFke% mn~ns'; jkstxkj miyC/k djkuk rks gksrk gh gS ijUrq yksd/ku jkstxkj fufeZr djus ij Hkh “Parmanent Productive assets” dh izkIrh Hkh visf{kr gksrh gS ftldk laKku vipkfj;ksa dks gksuk pkfg, FkkA vipkfj;ksa dh mnklhurk ykijokgh ds dkj.k gh ikS/kksa dk {kj.k ,oa u"V gksuk ik;k x;kA**
2.5 After consideration of reply of petitioner and other delinquent employees and note of disagreement, the appointing Authority closed the departmental enquiry vide order dated 19.1.2018 without imposition of any penalty on delinquents and
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to....
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and there must be factual supporting material in the FIR to fasten the accused with criminal liability.
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
