Allahabad High Court
Sri Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 November, 2013
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3692 of 2002 Applicant :- Sri Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
3. The present application u/s 482 has been filed for quashing the further proceedings of case no.4 of 2002 State Vs. Sri Prakash Singh under Section 409 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria pending in the Court of C. J. M. Deoria and also quash the charge sheet no. 511 of 2001 arising out of case crime no. 1060 of 2001 under section 409 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Deoria.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.8.2001 an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant by opposite party no.2 which was registered as case crime no.1060 of 2001 under section 409 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria alleging that the applicant had not deposited his service Pistol No.16098615 which was issued to him along-with 30 live cartridges from the Police Lines, Deoria, while he proceeded on leave for 10 days from 3.5.2000 to 13.5.2000. After investigation the Police submitted the charge sheet against the applicant on 23.11.2001 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 3.1.2002 and summoned the applicant for trial.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant was appointed as Police Constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh and he has been working in the department with great sincerity and full dedication and there was no compliant whatsoever, against him by his superior or subordinate. Moreover, the applicant's services were almost satisfactory in the department on account of which applicant was attached with S.O.G. and in connection of the same he has submitted his joining report on 8.2.2000 and when he was attached with the S.O.G. the aforesaid pistol along-with 30 live cartridges were allotted to him. The applicant due to unavoidable circumstances had rushed to his house and left application before the Superintendent of Police, Deoria for grant of 10 days leave from 3.5.2000 to 13.5.2000, but he could not deposited the said pistol along-with live cartridges which was allotted to him as his mother had seriously fell ill and as a result of which he could not submit his joining report on 13.5.2000. The applicant further submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police concerned requesting therein for extension of leave for some time on account of illness of his mother. The said application of the applicant was not considered by the department. He further submits that after the first information report was lodged the applicant has deposited the Pistol in question along-with live cartridges on 30.1.2002 with the department, the said fact has been mentioned in para nos.17 to 19 of the affidavit of the present 482 application.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that when the applicant has already Pistol along-with live cartridges in the Police Line hence his prosecution for the offence under section 409 I.P.C. is unwarranted. He further submitted that departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant with respect to the present case as well as in another criminal case in which he was found to be involved under section 302 I.P.C., the applicant has been acquitted by the competent court on 10.5.2002 in case under section 302 I.P.C.. He further pointed out that the Senior Superintendent of Police has dismissed the applicant on 29.12.2001 from his services because of the pendency of the present case and the criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C. and he has challenged his termination order in Civil Misc. Writ -A No.34580 of 2012 Sri Prakash Singh Vs. Dy. I.G.P. & Another and the said writ petition was allowed by this court vide order dated 6.4.2011 the copy of the order dated 6.4.2011 has been enclosed with the Rejoinder Affidavit and from perusal of the said order it appears that though the order terminating the services of the applicant was quashed by this Court, but it was observed that the department is free to hold departmental enquiry in respect of the charges on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed from services by the order impugned and incase such departmental proceedings are taken against the petitioner the same shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order before the Government authorities. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that on 6.4.2011 no departmental inquiry have been initiated against the applicant and only the period from 3.5.2000 to 18.9.2011 i.e. for a of 11 years 4 months and 15 days he was ordered for disentitlement of the salary on the basis of "No Work No Pay", he has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Deoria by which he was held disentitled for salary for the period during which he has not worked. He further submitted that the applicant has also been reinstated in service and he is still working in the department on the post of Constable, the said fact has also been mentioned in the para 3, 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit, which is on record. Hence he submitted that the present proceedings against the applicant be quashed as no offence under Section 409 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.
7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and submitted that it is true that the applicant has deposited his service pistol along-with 30 live cartridges the said fact has been mentioned in para 13 of the counter affidavit, but he submitted that simply because applicant has deposited the said pistol along-with 30 cartridges which were allotted to him does not discharge him from the offence, hence this application be dismissed.
8. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From perusal of the record it appears that the applicant has already deposited the pistol in question along-with live cartridges, and this fact has also been admitted in the counter affidavit. Moreover, the applicant has also been reinstated in service and working as Constable in the department and his termination order was also quashed by this Court earlier and the department has not initiated any further proceedings against him in pursuance of the order dated 6.4.2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner which was also allowed by this Court and only he has been held disentitled for the salary for the period during which he has not worked.
10. In my opinion, the present prosecution of the applicant does not seems to be desirable for the negligent act, for which he has already been punished by the department by not sanctioning him salary for 11 years 4 months and 15 days and further from the F.I.R. as well as impugned charge sheet submitted against the applicant no offence under section 409 I.P.C. is made out against him and it is a fit case for quashing of the impugned charge sheet as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case pending against the applicant by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence the impugned charge sheet as well as the proceedings against the applicnat in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
11. The application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2013 Dev/-