Exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not automatically bar criminal proceedings based on the same facts, as standards of proof differ.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”) filed before filing of the charge sheet and having been amended after filing of charge sheet, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II – 93 of 2016 registered with Khergam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 186 , 189, 504, 506, 119, 120B of the IPC, u/s 66(1)(B), 165AE, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act r/w Section 221 and 224 of the IPC and u/s 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The complainant – Police Constable first informant has intercepted four-wheeler Centro car near Rumda Chowki, Navsari as it was carrying several bottles of liquor. He along with other police constables bring took Centro car and liquor bottle to the police station.

2.2 The Petitioner herein, who is the Police Sub- Inspector of the concerned Police Station called the First Informant and asked him to let go of the said four-wheeler, as well as the person driving Centro car.

2.3 Hence, an FIR being IInd CR No. 93 of 2016 was registered with Khergam Police Station by the complainant against the petitioner under Sections 186 , 189, 504, 506, 119 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(1)(B), 165 AE, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act .

2.4 Subsequently, Sections 221 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 97(A) of the Prohibition Act were added.

2.5 Section 13 (1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added upon the telephonic instructions of the Range I.G., Surat.

2.6 The Petitioner was issued a charge memo and a Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the present Petitioner, inquiring into the incident which is the subject matter of the present FIR. Same.

2.7 An inquiry report was submitted by the presiding officer, wherein he has submitted that there is no evidence that has been found against the Petitioner pertaining to the allegations levelled by the First Informant herein. Hence, the Petitioner was exonerated in the said Departmental Inquiry, as no evidence was found pointing to his involvement in any of the alleged offences.

2.8 Since petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, present petition is filed to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, since the FIR is filed on the same facts, which are pleaded in the departmental proceeding.

3. Seeking quashment of the FIR and charge sheet, learned advocate Mr. Sanat Pandya for the petitioner would make two fold submission. Firstly, he would submit that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who is serving as PSI in the at the relevant point of time, on same facts, which are pleaded in the FIR. He referred to the report given by the SP, Navsari in departmental proceeding at at Annexure C and submitted that the departmental proceeding is culminated in favour of the petitioner and he has been exonerated by the inquiry officer, exoneration has been confirmed by the disciplinary authority. He would further submit that in view of the exoneration in the departmental proceeding, the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR should be dropped or strike down. He referred to the charge framed against the petitioner in departmental proceeding at Annexure C and submitted that charge is framed on the identical facts upon which the FIR is lodged against the petitioner. Retreating his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that since in the department