Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhagirath Singh Hoodda S/O Shri Dewa Ram ... vs The Advocate General on 9 September, 2021
Author: Satish Kumar Sharma
Bench: Satish Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 456/2019
Bhagirath Singh Hoodda S/o Shri Dewa Ram, Aged About 69
Years, R/o Gangiyasar P.S. Sadar Fatehpur Distt. Sikar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Advocate General, The State Of Raj. Rajasthan High
Court Bench, At Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
To The Department Of Home Affaris Govt. Of Rajasthan
Government Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Manager, Jhunjhunu Distt. Cooperative
Consumer Wholesale Cooperative Bhandar Ltd.
Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Kumar Verma Mr. Rajendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. CG Chopra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA Order 09/09/2021
1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking direction to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him in FIR No. 329/1996, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu wherein challan under Section 409 of IPC was filed against the petitioner under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. On 15.04.1998. Thereafter the accused petitioner was arrested and supplementary chargesheet was filed against him. During trial charges were framed but at the time of prosecution evidence he again absconded and still he is absconding. He has (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:00:53 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLW-456/2019] been declared proclaimed offender and after necessary proceedings standing warrant of arrest has been issued.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material made available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of special audit report wherein order was passed under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act itself is appealable order and as such the FIR is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that circular dated 30.09.1996 issued by the cooperative department of the State of Rajasthan was never published in the Official Gazette or newspaper, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is an officer of State allied services. The offence has been committed in discharge of public duties, therefore, no prosecution against him can be lodged before previous sanction of the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are abuse of process which deserve to be quashed. He placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(I) N.K Ogle Vs. Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja (Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1993) (II) Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Vs. Pandey Ajay Bhushan (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1114-15 of 1997) (III) R.L Sangle, Administrator, Manmad Municipal Council Vs. Vasantrao Sampatrao Ahire and Anr 1986 CRL. L.J. 100:: (1985) MAHLR 374.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
5. After considering the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record this Court finds that the impugned FIR was registered in the year 1996 for misappropriation of public money of 1,10,838.75/-. It is not so that after the special audit report the petitioner has deposited the (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:00:53 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLW-456/2019] misappropriated amount or has filed any statutory appeal, rather he absconded during the course of investigation and challan had to be filed against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. After his arrest, supplementary charge sheet was filed and the Trial Court framed charges against him for the offence under Section 409. When two witness were present in the Court for evidence he again absconded. Thus, this is a glaring example of abuse of process by the accused petitioner.
6. The legal position expounded in the judgments cited by the petitioner is not disputed but as indicated above cognizance under Section 409 of IPC has already been taken against the petitioner and after hearing both the sides charge has also been framed. The petitioner could have challenged the order of cognizance and the order of framing of charge as well but instead of that all these grounds have been raised by way of this petition after 25 years of the FIR and that too when he is absconding from the trial. Needless to say that the petitioner can take all the above legal objections before the Trial Court at appropriate stage which shall be dealt with in accordance with law and being aggrieved of the orders of the Trial Court he may challenge the same by way of appropriate petitions.
7. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J Faheem/1 (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:00:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)