Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 01.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 30 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:17402 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 769 of 2022 Reserved on : 01.03.2025 Decided on : 30.05.2025 Pushp Lata Singha ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4.
None for respondent No.5.
Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner-Pushp Lata Singha has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing of FIR No.03/2020, dated 12.05.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, SV & ACB, Shimla H.P., under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:17402 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 7-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the ground that the petitioner was serving in Secretariat and retired as Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is her further case that she has joined service as a Clerk in the tender age of 18 years and thereafter, she retired as Joint Secretary on 3.2.2022. She has further pleaded that she remained an exceptional Sports person and representing the State of Himachal Pradesh in various competitions.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2020, restrictions were imposed in view of COVID-19 pandemic, which started spreading all over the world, including India. In order to combat this highly contagious disease, the Government of India had issued various guidelines and instructions, to the State Governments, 3 2025:HHC:17402 under the Disaster Management Act, for taking effective steps to control and restrict the spread of this life threatening disease. The States were advised to procure and distribute sanitizers and face masks and to ensure mandatory use of the same. Hence, according to the petitioner, there was acute shortage of sanitizers and face masks throughout the country. Since, the Government Departments, including the H.P. Secretariat, continued to work up to March, 2020, as such, a decision was taken by the State Government and the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department (SAD), on the demand of the employees of the Secretariat, to provide hand sanitizers and face masks to each employee.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government of India issued instructions and guidelines under the National Disaster Management Act for procurement of material and medicines for controlling the disaster/pandemic, under the provisions of Section 50 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
5. Consequently, it was decided by the office of Secretary, Secretariat Administrative Department to immediately procure hand sanitizers and face masks and 4 2025:HHC:17402 to distribute them amongst the Secretariat staff in order to prevent the spread of disease. Considering the seriousness of the situation and paucity of time, instead of procuring items through the GeM Portal, Secretariat Administrative Department issued a notice inviting quotations for purchase of hand sanitizers, which was also published on the Government website through NIC with the approval of Secretary, Secretariat Administrative Department on 11.03.2020. At the same time, letters were also written to certain firms, dealing with the supply of above items. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 17.3.2020, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Secretariat Administrative Department. Apart from other decisions, it has also been decided that hand sanitizers and face masks be issued to all the officers/officials of the H.P. Secretariat.
6. Highlighting the fact that due to Covid-19 pandemic, there was lot of confusion and on account of the acute shortage and dire need of essential items, the emergency procedure, under the Disaster Management Act, was resorted to. The petitioner, in the capacity of Branch Officer, was duly authorized by the State Government, as well as, higher authorities, vide order dated 26.6.2019 to 5 2025:HHC:17402 procure any item, including the hand sanitizers and face masks.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that it was not specified that only those persons, who were registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, would be eligible to submit their quotations. She has further pleaded that in response to the notice inviting quotations, six firms quoted their rates and on the basis of a comparative statement, the interested parties were called for negotiations on 17.03.2020 at 11.30 am However, only one firm i.e. M/s Lalit Kumar (Respondent No.5) turned up for negotiation and due to the emergent situation, respondent No.5 was prevailed upon to supply the hand sanitizers below the lowest quoted rates, which was duly approved by the Secretary, Secretariat Administrative Department. After finalization of rates, supply order was placed to M/s Lalit Kumar for 3000 bottles of 100ml; sanitizers @Rs.130/- per 100 ml. and 50 bottles of 500ml; @Rs 300/- a bottle. In pursuance of the order, being placed upon him, respondent No.5 supplied only 2802 bottles of 100ml. @Rs.130/- per bottle against the printed Maximum Rate 6 2025:HHC:17402 Price of Rs.190/- and due to shortage of the sanitizers in the market, he could not supply the balance order.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was having no means of verifying, whether the persons, who had submitted their quotations, were genuine parties or not or whether they were registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and neither was it necessary to consider this aspect, while procuring these essential items, on an emergent basis, under the Disaster Management Act. The hand sanitizers, which were supplied by respondent No.5, were duly put to use by the Secretariat staff in order to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease. Thus, the order for supplying 3000 bottles of 100 ml hand sanitizers was placed on M/s Lalit Kumar, who had agreed to supply the same at the lowest price of Rs.130/- per 100ml. The total cost of this supply was less than Rs.4.00 lacs.
9. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, on an urgent requirement to procure additional hand sanitizers, masks and soaps etc., a proposal was mooted by the Personnel Department, Government of H.P., on 23.03.2020, for providing a special Budget Head of Rs.20.00 lacs., for procuring Hand sanitizers, masks and 7 2025:HHC:17402 soaps etc., to the officers/employees of the H.P. Secretariat, in accordance with the directions issued by the higher authorities. This proposal was duly routed through the petitioner and was approved by the Secretary (SAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 23.3.2020. Subsequently, on receiving the approval from the Secretary, the petitioner placed an additional order for supply of 3000 bottles of 100 ml hand sanitizers on M/s Lalit Kumar, i.e. respondent No.5 on 24.3.2020.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Central Government had issued a notification dated 21.3.2020, fixing the price of Hand Sanitizers @Rs.50/- per 100 milliliter and the said notification was to come into force from the date of its publication, in the Official Gazette. This fact was also conveyed to respondent No.5 orally and he, according to the stand, taken in the petition, agreed to abide by the notification, in case it came into force.
11. It is the further case of the petitioner that additional order was placed to M/s Lalit Kumar on 24.03.2020. On that day, the Central Government imposed a complete lock down throughout the Country w.e.f.
8 2025:HHC:17402 24.03.2020, and due to this fact, the petitioner was unable to attend the office after 24.03.2020, nor was ever required by the higher authorities to be present in office, during the period of lockdown. Thus, the petitioner was confined to her home from 24.03.2020 up to 20.04.2020.
12. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the absence of the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary Mr. Ved Prakash Garg, was entrusted with the responsibilities of the petitioner and as such, according to the petitioner, he was responsible for the action of all the subordinate officials of the branch. The consignment of sanitizers was also received on 06.04.2020. At that time, Shri Ved Prakash was officiating as the Branch Incharge in place of the petitioner. When the petitioner was on duty, she had obtained a sanction of Rs.20,00,000/-, for procuring sanitizers, masks etc., whereas, in her absence, the Branch had sought an additional sum of Rs.40 lacs on 07.04.2020 during the tenure of Sh. Ved Parkash, being officiating Branch Incharge.
13. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this regard, note sheet dated 07.04.2020 has been procured and annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-8.
9 2025:HHC:17402 However, despite this fact, no action has been taken against Sh. Ved Parkash, nor, has he been implicated in the case, even though, the second batch of sanitizers was received under his charge. According to the petitioner, the supply was received on 06.04.2020 and at that time, she was not present in the office.
14. The petitioner has further pleaded that on 21.03.2020, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution, Government of India had issued a notification, wherein it was specified that the retail price of Hand sanitizers shall not be more than Rs.100/- per bottle of 200 ml and also mandated that the price of other quantities of Hand sanitizers shall be fixed in the proportion of these prices. In other words, the Government of India fixed the prices of Hand sanitizers @ Rs.50/- for each 100 ml. bottles. Copy of the notification dated 21.03.2020 has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-9.
15. The said notification, according to the petitioner, has never been adopted, nor, was the same notified by the State Government separately.
10 2025:HHC:17402
16. It is the further case of the petitioner that the notification was issued on 21.3.2020 by the Government of India and complete lockdown was imposed in the country w.e.f. 24.3.2020. It is her further case that notification was issued on 21.3.2020 and 22.3.2020 was a Sunday, and the supply order was already placed after obtaining the necessary approval on 18.03.2020, as such, the notification issued by the Government on 21.3.2020 has no applicability on the supply order, which was placed on 18.03.2020.
17. It is the further case of the petitioner that the order, which was placed after following due procedure was valid one, as the notification dated 21.3.2020, would apply prospectively. Petitioner, however, disassociated herself from the supply order, which was placed from 24.03.2020 to 23.4.2020, when she was confined to her home due to lockdown. The said supply order is also stated to be placed without knowledge of the petitioner.
18. The petitioner has further pleaded that immediately, after partial relaxation of the lockdown on 21.04.2020, she has started attending the office and on being apprised about the controversy by the Secretary 11 2025:HHC:17402 SAD, regarding the supply of hand sanitizers, she immediately wrote a letter to the supplier M/s Lalit Kumar, respondent No.5, on the same day i.e. 21.04.2020, on the direction of the Secretary, wherein, respondent No.5, was asked to explain as to why a stamp of Rs.150/- had been affixed on the sanitizer bottles over the printed price of Rs.50/- and as to why the supplier had submitted a bill @Rs.130/- per 100 ml. bottles, even though, respondent No.5 had been apprised of the fact that vide notification dated 21.03.2020, the Central Government had fixed the price of Rs.50/- per 100 ml. bottle. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.04.2020, the petitioner had also sought an explanation from the Under Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department, regarding the stamp of Rs.150/-, being affixed on the 100ml. bottle of sanitizers and as to why, a sum of Rs.40.00 lacs had been sought for procuring these items, in her absence.
19. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 24.04.2020, she was served with a show cause notice issued by the Secretary (Secretariat Administration) to the Government of H.P. i.e. respondent No.1, wherein, she was asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary 12 2025:HHC:17402 proceedings, under the CCS (CCA) Rules, be not initiated against her. The said show cause notice was duly replied.
20. According to the petitioner, the delivery of the hand sanitizers against the order dated 24.03.2020 had been received by the subordinate officials, during the period of lockdown, when, the petitioner was absent from office. However, on 29.05.2020, respondent No.1 had passed detailed orders after noticing the reply and facts and dropped the show cause notice, with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future for the reasons that she should have taken responsibility of proper checking over the process of receiving/opening of the order herself.
21. All these facts, have been highlighted to show that even higher authorities and superior officials did not find any act of omission and commission, much less a criminal act of cheating or misappropriation, against the petitioner, and only advised the petitioner that she should have received the supply order herself. Subsequently, the investigation of the matter was entrusted to the Vigilance Department by the State Government and the FIR, in question, was registered against the petitioner.
13 2025:HHC:17402
22. Thereafter, a detailed questionnaire was sent to her by Dy. S.P., to which, the petitioner has submitted the reply, however, her stand has not been taken into consideration by the Police.
23. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
a) That FIR No.3/2020 registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 31 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt TOD Rractices Act, 1983 and Section 18(A) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 at Police Station State Vigilance Registr &Anti Corruption Bureau Shimla (Annexure P-17), may kindly be quashed.
b). That the challan filed before the Ld. Special Judge (Forest) Shimla under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C.(Annexure P-18)in pursuance to the FIR No. 3/2020 and further proceedings taken thereto in Case No.11-S/7 of 2021 pending before the Ld. Special Judge (Forest) Shimla being illegal and arbitrary may also kindly be quashed qua the petitioner and the record in respect of the challan filed before the Ld. Special Judge (Forest) Shimla may kindly be called for.24. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 to 4
have filed their reply by taking the preliminary objection that the petition is devoid of merit, as, the charges have not been framed by the learned trial Court.
14 2025:HHC:17402
25. In addition to this, the plea has also been taken by the respondents that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by taking a plea that on account of lockdown, she had not done any office work from 24.03.2020 till 20.04.2020, whereas, according to the respondents, as per the directions of the Government, no official was allowed to leave the station and had to work from home.
26. The stand of the petitioner, qua the fact that from 24.03.2020 till 20.04.2020, she had not discharged any official duty, is stated to be contrary to the directions of the Government, as, the petitioner was on leave during that period and she was holding the post of Deputy Secretary (SAD) to the Government of H.P. and was responsible for the purchase of sanitizers, masks etc. The petitioner had actively participated in the commission of the offence, being Incharge of the procurement Committee.
27. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner, being Incharge of the procurement Committee, was supposed to know that only competent/authorized firms can participate in the tender process for issuance of work order for supply of the sanitizers. The FIR in question is stated to be registered against the petitioner on the basis 15 2025:HHC:17402 of the letter dated 11.05.2020, issued by the Secretary (SA), Government of H.P., along with 64 enclosures.
28. It is the further case of the respondents that the State Drugs Controller enquired the matter by deputing a team of 3 Drugs Inspectors and as per the preliminary enquiry report, manufacturers of the hand wash sanitizers i.e. M/s Asian Pharma, Baddi, District Solan and M/s Samson Laboratories, Barotiwala, Solan had donated the hand sanitizers and never sold the same to M/s Lalit Kumar, Government Contractor and Supplier. The said supplier had quoted the price of the hand sanitizer on higher price, as against the approved price of the Government and tampering was also made on the label of the price. Even, in the separate enquiry, conducted by the Department of Health Safety Regulations, H.P., prima facie, collusion has been indicated between the branch officials and the supplier.
29. It is the further case of the respondents that H.P. Secretariat Employees' Association had submitted a request to the Secretary (SA) to the Government of H.P., to provide the sanitizers to all the employees of the Secretariat and hand wash in all the toilets, so that spread 16 2025:HHC:17402 of COVID-19 could be prevented. The said request was processed by Sh. Sukh Pal, Clerk of SA-R&I-1 on 05.03.2020, through Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Superintendent (05.03.2020), Smt. Kusum Lata, Section Officer (05.03.2020), Smt. Pushp Lata Singha, Dy. Secretary (05.03.2020) to the Secretary (SA) to the Government of H.P. (petitioner), who gave her consent to the proposal on 05.03.2020 itself.
30. It is the further case of the respondents that thereafter, Sh. Sukh Pal, Clerk moved the file on 11.03.2020 that they may call bids/quotations for purchasing the sanitizers. This note-sheet was moved through Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Superintendent to Smt. Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner) and she consented and letters were sent, by post, on 11.03.2020 to 6 firms, namely M/s A.P Enterprises, Dhilo Complex, Nav Bahar, Shimla, M/s Vee Kay Enterprises, below Gurudwara Sanjauli, Shimla, M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Ram Dass Building Sanjauli, Shimla, M/s New Eagle Service, Lower Kaithu, Shimla-3, M/s Krishna Nand & Sons 45, Lower Bazar, Shimla and M/s Lalit Kumar, Set No.92, Block No.92, Nabha Estate, Shimla 17 2025:HHC:17402 for giving quotations and copy thereof was also uploaded on the official website.
31. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the letter, sent to M/s New Eagle Service, Lower Kaithu, has been found to be sent with an ulterior motive, as, this firm existed at Kaithu till 2005 and thereafter, shifted its office at Kachighatti and letter was not received by the firm.
32. Moreover, according to the respondents, when, the address of the firm i.e. M/s New Eagle Service was changed 15 years back, then, sending the letter on the old address points towards an ulterior motive, so as to show the competitive bids on papers.
33. It is the further case of the respondents that the quotations were received from all the six firms except M/s New Eagle Service, Kaithu and one quotation was also received from Bharat Sharma, R/o Set No.93, Nabha, Shimla. The said quotation was found to be fake, as, the occupant of the said house was to be in the name of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, who has disclosed that neither, he knows any Bharat Sharma, nor any Bharat Sharma resides in this accommodation. Even, on the handwritten quotation, 18 2025:HHC:17402 there was no reference of GSTIN, but, this was also considered for comparative statement. Even, M/s AP Enterprises and M/s Vee Kay Enterprises, from whom, the quotations were received, were not registered for GSTIN with the General Sales Tax Department.
34. It is the further case of the respondents that comparative statement of six received quotations was drawn by Sh. Sukh Pal, Clerk and the file was moved through Smt. Kusum Lata, Section Officer and this file was further submitted to Smt. Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner), who approved the rates of Sh. Lalit Kumar (respondent No.5) as L-1 for 100 ml and 500 ml of hand sanitizers with rates of Rs.130/- and Rs.300/-, respectively, whereas, as per the quotation, received and comparative statement, respondent No.5 had quoted rate for 500 ml of sanitizer as Rs.370/- and M/s Krishna Nand & Sons, Lower Bazar, Shimla had quoted rate for 500 ml as Rs.325/-. respondent No.5, M/s Lalit Kumar, Government Contractor & Supplier was found L-1 with Rs.130/- for every 100 ml bottle and was also made L-1 with Rs.300/- for every 500 ml bottle of hand sanitizer, by intentionally mentioning his rates for 500 ml as Rs.300/- in place of Rs.370/-, whereas, 19 2025:HHC:17402 he was L-2. All these facts have been highlighted to show that Sh. Sukh Pal, Smt. Kusum Lata and Smt. Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner) had connived with respondent No.5 from the very beginning of the process of purchasing sanitizers and had not mentioned the type of packing required i.e. 100 ml or 500 ml or any other packing.
35. It is the further case of the respondents that even, in the note-sheet, the quantity to be purchased has not been mentioned. They have prepared the false comparative statement by mentioning the rates, quoted by respondent No.5 as Rs.300/- per 500 ml, whereas, he had quoted Rs.370/- for 500 ml, so as to get the rate approved in favour of respondent No.5. In this regard, respondents have also relied upon the report of SFSL, Junga dated 16.11.2020, which, according to the stand, taken by the respondents, has also confirmed the matching of handwriting of accused Government Officials and accused Lalit Kumar (respondent No.5).
36. It is the further case of the respondents that on 18.03.2020, supply order of 3000 sanitizers was issued to M/s Lalit Kumar, but, the type of packing/quantity of each bottle was not mentioned in the supply order. Since, Lalit 20 2025:HHC:17402 Kumar was not in a position to supply such a huge quantity, he had contacted Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Ex- Councillor of MC Shimla, who arranged the supply of sanitizers from M/s Asian Pharma, Katha, Baddi. M/s Asian Pharma, Baddi had sent 2700 bottles of 100 ml each of sanitizers and 40 bottles of 500 ml each on 20.03.2020, through Vehicle No.HP-64-6494 and driver of the said vehicle, namely Vijay Kumar, was given the mobile number of said Gaurav Sharma, for contact, regarding the place of delivery. The said supply was for official use and not for sale and the invoice was only for Octroi purpose. Lalit Kumar had deposited/transferred a sum of Rs.50,000/-, through RTGS from his bank account in H.P. State Co. Op. Bank Ltd. to the bank account of M/s Asian Pharma, Baddi, on 19.03.2020. The partner of M/s Asian Pharma Sh. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary had disclosed that he had sent the sanitizers free of cost for office use only on the request of Sh. Gaurav Sharma.
37. It is the further case of the respondents that the act of M/s Asian Pharma to supply the sanitizers to H.P. Secretariat free of cost, seems to be genuine, but, the 21 2025:HHC:17402 owner of M/s Asian Pharma was unaware about the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by Lalit Kumar in firm's account.
38. During the investigation, as per the reply, on 23.03.2020, Sukh Pal, Clerk moved note sheet for purchasing more sanitizers. The note sheet was put up before Kusum Lata, Section Officer, who forwarded the same to Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner) on the same day and she issued supply order for 50 bottles of 500 ml each and 500 bottles of 100 ml each on 24.03.2020. Thereafter, Lalit Kumar again requested Gaurav Sharma to arrange for the supply. This time, Gaurav Sharma contacted the owner of M/s Samson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Barotiwala, who had sent 3000 bottles of 100 ml each of sanitizers on 31.03.2020, in vehicle No.HP12-K-9953, along with certificate, wherein, it has been mentioned that the supply is for office use and not for sale. There was an emergent demand of sanitizers in the HP Secretariat and hence, Gaurav Sharma delivered 2640 bottles of sanitizers of 100 ml each to HP Secretariat, on behalf of Lalit Kumar, as, he was out of station, at that time.
39. It is the further case of the respondents that during the investigation, it was found that Gaurav Sharma 22 2025:HHC:17402 had donated more sanitizers in the public and also to receive back 2640 bottles from Lalit Kumar, supplied against the supply order dated 24.03.2020. So, he requested Vikram Jeet Singh Sahni, partner of M/s Radico Remedies Mandhala, Barotiwala, on 04.04.2020, to donate sanitizers for distribution to public at Shimla, but, Vikram Jeet Singh Sahni did not supply the sanitizers. However, on the asking of Gaurav Sharma, Vikram Jeet Singh Sahni delivered 5000 bottles on credit and donated 1000 bottles. The invoice of these 5000 bottles and credit challan of 1000 bottles was issued in the name of Lalit Kumar. The supply was delivered by Het Ram, representative of M/s Radico Remedies and driver Gurcharan Singh.
40. After receiving the above articles, Sukh Pal, Clerk, maintained two Stock Registers for the receipt of sanitizers. He had entered the receipt of sanitizers of bottles in Stock Register at Pg No.1, 2 and 57, wherein, 2808 bottles of 100 ml each had been entered vide Bill No.005 dated 20.03.2020. Thereafter, 2640 bottles of 100 ml each and 40 bottles of 500 ml each have been entered vide Bill No.006 dated 06.04.2020, but, these bottles had been received on 31.03.2020. When, the matter was 23 2025:HHC:17402 highlighted in media for supplying sanitizer's bottles costing Rs.50/- @Rs.130/-, then, H.P. Secretariat SA (R&I-
1), Branch had issued notice to the supplier i.e. Lalit Kumar and he submitted new bills for already submitted bill at the rate of Rs.50/- per bottle of 100 ml and Rs.250/- for 500 ml for the second supply order. Subsequently, Sukh Pal entered the receipt of sanitizers of bottles in new Stock Register at Pg No.1, 2 and 11, wherein, 3000 bottles of 100 ml each had been entered vide Bill No.008 dated 20.03.2020, 2488 bottles of 100 ml each vide Bill No.007 dated 06.04.2020 and 552 bottles of 100 ml each on 06.05.2020. However, there is no mention of receipt of 40 bottles of 500 ml each in the Stock Register and as such, the said person i.e. Sukh Pal has tried to cheat the Government, by maintaining forged record and hiding the receipt of sanitizers at higher rates.
41. It is the further case of the respondents that Government of India had fixed maximum price of 200 ml of sanitizers as Rs.100/- and price of other quantities of hand sanitizers to be in the proportion of these prices, vide Notification dated 21.03.2020, issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs i.e. 3 days prior to issue of second 24 2025:HHC:17402 supply order. Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner), Kusum Lata and Sukh Pal had processed the issue of second supply order, without pointing out the aforesaid fact.
42. It is the further case of the respondents that Rajeev Sharma, Sukh Pal and Lalit Kumar, having full knowledge of the fact that the bottle of 100 ml of sanitizers cannot be sold or bought for more than Rs.50/- per bottle of 100 ml, in connivance with each other, affixed stamp of MRP 150/- on bottles of sanitizers on 10th and 11th April, 2020, in the store/office of Rajiv Kumar, in order to justify the raised bill for higher price i.e. Rs.130/- for each bottle of 100 ml against Rs.50/- per bottle and Rs.300/- per bottle of 500 ml each against Rs.250/- per bottle. They have tampered the label by affixing the stamp of Rs.150/-, so that it may be presumed by the users that the rate was higher than the supplier rate. Further, the seal having seal impression MRP 150/-, which had been affixed on the labels of bottles of sanitizers by Lalit Kumar in connivance with Rajeev Kumar and Sukh Pal, was taken into possession from Lalit Kumar and same was sent to SFSL, Junga, along with samples of bottles of sanitizers, having seal impression of MRP 150/- and Rs.50/- for comparison.
25 2025:HHC:17402
43. It is the further case of the respondents that during investigation, Lalit Kumar was found to be not a licensed dealer and hence, provisions of Section 31 of the HP Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 were not attracted in the case.
44. It is the further case of the respondents that the prosecution has already been launched by Drugs Inspector against Lalit Kumar in the competent Court of law, under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and hence, Section 31 of HP Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, have been deleted, in this case.
45. It is the further case of the respondents that Sukh Pal, Clerk and Rajeev Kumar, Superintendent have performed their duty improperly and dishonestly in anticipation of any undue advantage, as, they allowed Lalit Kumar to affix stamp/alter labels of sanitizer bottles in the store/office after 10-11 days of receipt of the material to cheat the Government and as such, Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 was found to have been committed by them. Hence, this Section was added, in this case.
26 2025:HHC:17402
46. It is the further case of the respondents that quotation and comparative statement showed that Sukh Pal, Kusum Lata and Pushp Lata Singha (petitioner) have performed their duty improperly and dishonestly in anticipation of any undue advantage and have cheated the Government of Himachal Pradesh by forging the documents of purchasing process.
47. Highlighting the role, attributed to petitioner- Pushp Lata Singha, it is the further case of the respondents that she did not ensure the due financial prudence, before submitting the proposal for the purchase of sanitizers to the Secretary (SA) to the Government of H.P. The petitioner should have mentioned clearly the expected quantity of sanitizers and expected expenditure, so that, the method of purchasing i.e. calling quotations, rate contract, limited tender system or open tender system, would have been followed. She has got an approval to purchase sanitizers for Secretarial staff, but, did not get the approval regarding specific quantity from Secretary (SA). She did not care to verify as to whether the firms, from whom, the quotations for the purchase of sanitizers were called, were having the drug license or not, as, the 27 2025:HHC:17402 sanitizers proposed to be purchased are covered, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as drug.
48. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner, in connivance with Kusum Lata and Sukh Pal, prepared false comparative statement, so as to get the rate approved in favour of Lalit Kumar by mentioning his quoted rate as Rs.300/- per 500 ml, whereas, he had quoted Rs.370/- for 500 ml and M/s Krishna Nand & Sons had quoted rate for 500 ml as Rs.325/-. She had approved the rates of sanitizers, as cited by Lalit Kumar, and issued supply order on 18.03.2020 for 3000 sanitizers, but, the packing of bottles i.e. 100 ml and 500 ml was not mentioned.
49. As per the further stand, taken by the respondents, the petitioner had issued second supply order of 500 sanitizers of 100 ml each @Rs.130/- per bottle and 50 sanitizers of 500 ml each @Rs.300/- per bottle, whereas, as per Notification, published in Gazette on 21.03.2020, only Rs.50/- could have been charged for sanitizer bottle of 100 ml and Rs.250/- for 500 ml bottle. This act enabled Lalit Kumar to raise bill for 3000 sanitizers of 100 ml each @Rs.130/- per bottle against 28 2025:HHC:17402 Rs.50/- per bottle and Rs.300/- per bottle of 500 ml each against Rs.250/- per bottle. Thus, Lalit Kumar was able to raise bill for Rs.4,02,000/-, whereas, as per new rates, notified by GoI, the bill would have been for Rs.1,60,000/-.
50. It is the further case of the respondents that the quotation allegedly submitted by Bharat Sharma was handwritten quotation and there was no reference of address of Bharat Sharma & GSTIN on the quotation. Similarly, during the investigation, it was found that two firms, namely M/s AP Enterprises and M/s Vee Kay Enterprises, to whom, the letters had been sent for quotations, were not registered for GSTIN with the General Sales Tax Department.
51. It is the further case of the respondents that during the investigation, it was found that the petitioner, in connivance with other officials, had provided undue benefit in favour of accused Lalit Kumar (respondent No.5), by preparing wrong comparative statement of quotations and also considered the fake and ineligible quotations.
52. It is the further case of the respondents that the officials had intentionally made Lalit L-1 by quoting his rate Rs.300/- for 500 ml bottle of sanitizer against his 29 2025:HHC:17402 mentioned rate of Rs.370/- for ml bottle and on 18.03.2020, supply order was issued to M/s Lalit Kumar for supply of 3000 sanitizers without mentioning the quantity of bottles, whereas, L-1 M/s Krishna Nand & Sons had altered the figures and started negotiations with Lalit Kumar fully knowing that he is not authorized to supply the sanitizers.
53. As per the further case of the respondents, it has been admitted that the Notification, dated 21.03.2020, had no implication on first supply order of sanitizers, dated 18.03.2020, rest of the stand of the petitioner has been denied.
54. Similarly, non-presence of the petitioner on the spot, when, affixation of stamp of MRP of Rs.150/- on 100 ml bottles was done by accused Lalit Kumar in the store of H.P. Secretariat, in connivance with other accused officials Sukh Pal and Rajeev Kumar, has also been admitted. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner, in connivance with other accused officials, had issued second supply order of 3000 sanitizer bottles in favour of accused Lalit Kumar on 24.03.2020 with mala fide intention of providing undue benefit and did not consider the rates, 30 2025:HHC:17402 fixed by Central Government, vide Notification dated 21.03.2020.
55. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply, filed by the respondents, denying the preliminary objections, by taking the plea that after obtaining the approval of the competent authority, the letter was issued on 11.03.2020 to six firms for submitting quotations for supply of hand sanitizers and hand wash for the use in HP Secretariat. Those quotations were opened on 17.03.2020, but, respondent No.5-Lalit Kumar turned up for negotiations and due to the emergent situation, the order was placed upon him at a rate below the lowest quoted rates. The total value of the supply was less than Rs.4 lacs and the order was placed for 3000 bottles of hand sanitizer @Rs.130/- per bottles. Consequently, respondent No.5- Lalit Kumar immediately supplied 2802 bottles of 100 ml each, which were duly put to use and urgent requirement arose to procure additional hand sanitizers. 55.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that the proposal to sanction Rs.20 lacs for purchasing additional hand sanitizers was duly approved by Secretary (SAD) on 23.03.2020. It has been admitted that although, the 31 2025:HHC:17402 Notification dated 21.03.2020 was issued by Central Government fixing the rate of hand sanitizer @Rs.100/- per bottle of 200 ml. However, the said notification was published in the Rajpatra by the State Government on 03.04.2020 and became effective from that date. All these facts have been pleaded to show that on 24.03.2020, when, additional order was placed on respondent No.5-Lalit Kumar, Central Government Notification was not made applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, as, the same became effective on 03.04.2020.
55.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the absence of the petitioner, one Ved Prakash Garg, Deputy Secretary was holding the charge of R&I-1 Section and he approved and signed the proposal for additional funds and the second consignment was also received during his charge.
55.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that no payment, whatsoever, was made to respondent No.5-Lalit Kumar and as such, question of causing loss to the public exchequer does not arise.
56. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of FIR in 32 2025:HHC:17402 question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court.
57. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the year 1992, in the case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, reported as 1992 CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in 33 2025:HHC:17402 their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate with the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FLR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only. a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
34 2025:HHC:17402
58. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under:
"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, 35 2025:HHC:17402 all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or 36 2025:HHC:17402 may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.....
8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 37 2025:HHC:17402 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding."
38 2025:HHC:17402
59. It is no longer res integra that at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court cannot assume the powers of the appeal/revisional Court, nor, this Court can act as trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, reported as (2019) 10 SCALE 239. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
"15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
60. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar & Others versus State of Bihar & Another, reported as (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241.
61. Record perused.
39 2025:HHC:17402
62. In view of the above legal proposition, now, this Court will proceed to discuss the stand, as taken by the petitioner, in the present case.
63. In this case, on 24.04.2020, the petitioner was served a show cause notice, issued by the Secretary (Secretariat Administration) to the Government of H.P. i.e. respondent No.1, wherein, she was asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceedings, under the CCS (CCA) Rules, be not initiated against her. The said show cause notice was duly replied with, vide Annexure P-14 and vide Annexure P-15, the said show cause notice was ordered to be dropped, with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future.
64. As per the documents, annexed with the petition, the quotations for purchasing the hand sanitizer and liquid hand wash items were issued, under the signatures of the petitioner, on 11.03.2020, vide Annexure P-3. The said letter was addressed to six firms, namely M/s V.K. Enterprises, below Gurudwara Sanjauli, Shimla, M/s Krishana Nand & Sons, Lower Bazar, Shimla, M/s New Eagle Service, Lower Kaithu, Shimla, M/s A.P. Enterprises, Dhilo Complex, Nav Bahar, Shimla, M/s Tirupati 40 2025:HHC:17402 Enterprises, Main Bazar, Sanjauli, Shimla and M/s Lalit Kumar, Set No.92, Block-M, Nabha House, Shimla.
65. As per the record, in pursuance of the letter dated 11.03.2020, which was written to the aforementioned six firms, quotations were called, under the signatures of petitioner-Pushp Lata Singha. Consequently, M/s Krishna Nand & Sons, M/s Tirupati Enterprises, M/s V.K. Enterprises and M/s Lalit Kumar had supplied the quotations and subsequently, the petitioner had prepared the comparative statement, regarding the purchase of sanitizers.
66. It has rightly been pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, that in the quotations, submitted by M/s Lalit Kumar, rate of 500 ml sanitizer has been quoted as Rs.370/- per piece with dispenser, whereas, in the comparative statement, prepared by the petitioner, the amount, which was quoted for 500 ml sanitizer, has been mentioned as Rs.300/-, instead of Rs.370/-, as, quoted by Lalit Kumar, Contractor. Thereafter, on 18.03.2020, the petitioner informed M/s Lalit Kumar, regarding the approved rate of purchasing sanitizers, which has been mentioned as Rs.130/- for 100 41 2025:HHC:17402 ml and Rs.300/- for 500 ml. Subsequently, the supply order was placed on 18.03.2020, as well as, on 24.03.2020.
67. As per the documents, as referred to above, the petitioner had invited the quotations from six different firms, by mentioning their names and as such, the petitioner cannot assert, in the present petition, that she had no means of verifying, whether the persons, who had submitted their quotations, were genuine party or not, or whether they were registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and according to her, neither, it was necessary to consider this aspect, while procuring the essential items on emergent basis.
68. The fact of non-considering the entitlement of the firms, to whom, she had written a letter, will be considered by the learned trial Court and mere assertion of the petitioner that she had no means to verify the said fact, is inconsequential, at this stage. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors, reported as 2004 (1) SCC 691. Relevant 42 2025:HHC:17402 paragraph 11 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:-
"11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc., Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to
43 2025:HHC:17402 find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See :
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, State of Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S. and another, Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
(self-emphasis supplied)
69. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are adjudged, in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, whatsoever, pleaded by the petitioner, in this regard, can be said to be petitioner's probabilized defence, which is not liable to be considered, at this stage, as, at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, only, the evidence/documents, so 44 2025:HHC:17402 collected by the prosecution, are to be considered as it is i.e. if, from the plain reading of the above documents, a case is made out, then, the inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised to cut short the legitimate prosecution, as, the prosecution has every right to get the opportunity to prove its case against the accused, by leading evidence.
70. So far as the case law i.e. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.', reported as (2014) 7 SCC 215, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, with due respect to the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as, the quotations were called by the petitioner. Thereafter, she had made the comparative chart and got the rates approved in favour of respondent No.5, which, according to the case, set up by the prosecution, has been done by the petitioner by changing the rates quoted by respondent No.5. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that from the bare reading of the case, as set up by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, no benefit could be derived from the above case law by the petitioner.
45 2025:HHC:17402
71. So far as the other case law i.e. Rashmi Chopra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and other connected cases, reported as (2019) 15 SCC 357, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, with due respect to the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, from the documents, so annexed and referred to above, it cannot be said that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, at this stage, would be an abuse of the process of Court. Hence, no benefit could be taken by the petitioner, from the above decisions.
72. Admittedly, in this case, show cause notice was issued and on reply thereof by the petitioner, the memo was issued against her on 29.05.2020 and by taking a lenient view, the said show cause notice was ordered to be dropped. However, it has been held that the petitioner should have taken responsibility of proper checking over the process of receiving/opening of such a huge order herself.
73. Now, the question arises for determination before this Court is as to whether on this ground, the present petition can be allowed by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto.
46 2025:HHC:17402
74. In this case, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has been exonerated and as such, according to the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, the criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue.
75. To buttress his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, reported as 1996 (9) SCC 1 and in 'Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.', reported as 2020 (9) SCC 636.
76. So far as the case law i.e. P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, reported as (1996) 9 SCC 1, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, with due respect to the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same nowhere helps the case of the petitioner, as, in this case, only show cause notice was issued, which, on reply, was ordered to be dropped and no regular enquiry was conducted by the Department, whereas, the show cause notice, Annexure P-13, was issued on the following two grounds:-
47 2025:HHC:17402 "1. In the second tranche of supply of hand sanitizers received in pursuance to supply order dated 24.03.2020, the M.R.P. printed as Rs.50/-
per 100 ml, whereas it has been found to be tampered with amended to Rs.150/- per 100 ml by way of stamping over the printed M.R.P. This fact was not brought to the notice of your Superiors at the time of the receipt of this supply.
2. A bill against this supply order (of 24.03.2020) has been received on 06.04.2020 which mentions the cost of 100 ml hand sanitizer to be Rs.130/- per 100 ml, whereas vide Department of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India's Notification dated 21.03.2020, the price was to be capped at Rs.50/- per 100 ml. No clarification notice was given to the supplier for infringing this notification." 76.1. Thereafter, the said show cause notice was dropped, vide Annexure P-14, on 29.05.2020, by issuing a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future, whereas, according to the case, set up by the prosecution, the false comparative statement was prepared improbably, dishonestly, in anticipation of undue advantage and cheated the Government of Himachal Pradesh by forging the documents of purchasing process.
76.2. The prosecution has levelled the specific charges against the petitioner that she, in connivance with Kusum Lata and Sukh Pal, in process of purchasing the sanitizers, prepared false comparative statement, so as to get the rates approved, in favour of respondent No.5-Lalit 48 2025:HHC:17402 Kumar, by mentioning the amount quoted as Rs.300/- per 500 ml, whereas, he quoted the rate Rs.370/- for 500 ml and M/s Krishna Nand & Sons had quoted the rate of 500 ml as Rs.325/-. As such, no benefit could be taken from the above case law by the petitioner.
77. So far as the other case law i.e. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., reported as (2020) 9 SCC 636, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, with due respect of the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, the accused was exonerated on merits by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), whereas, in this case, even, the enquiry has not been conducted and simply, the show cause notice was issued, which was, later on, dropped by issuing a warning to the petitioner. Moreover, the allegations, as reproduced above, were not the subject matter of the show cause notice. The show cause notice, which was issued, was totally vague, whereas, the prosecution has been launched, on the basis of the specific allegations, as referred to above. As such, no benefit could be taken from the above case law by the petitioner.
49 2025:HHC:17402
78. In this case, it has also been argued by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner and as such, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, are liable to be quashed. While arguing so, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.', reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1069. 78.1. In the present case, the quotations were called by the petitioner and comparative chart was prepared by her. Thereafter, rates were got approved in favour of respondent No.5, whereas, in the aforesaid case, the appellant, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came into picture, much later in July 1999, when, various trademarks and brands of A-1 were purchased by A-6 and at that time, appellants were not at all in the picture, when, the complainant claims to have spent money in the improvement of its bottling plant, on the basis of the agreement, executed with M/s Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. The factual position, as involved in the said case, is totally different from the factual 50 2025:HHC:17402 position, as involved in the present case. Hence, no benefit could be taken from the above case law by the petitioner.
79. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer, so made in the petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
80. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
81. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.
( Virender Singh ) Judge May 30, 2025 (ps/Gaurav)