Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 31.7.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:6552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CrMMO No. 1105 of 2023
Date of Decision: 31.7.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Bhupinder Pal Mahajan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with
r Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.17/11 dated 11.3.2011, registered at State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 2 2024:HHC:6552
2. For having bird's eye view, facts which may be relevant for .
adjudication of the case at hand are that FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged on the basis of charge sheet No. 5 of 2008 dated 5.8.2008, submitted by the political party i.e. BJP, wherein issue with regard to illegalities committed by the Public Works Department while upgrading the license of contractors from B-category to A-category, came to be highlighted. In the charge sheet, it came to be alleged that the Public Works Department upgraded the license of certain contractors from B-
category to A-category in violation of Rule 6 (d) of Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. As per pleadings adduced on record by both the parties, petitioner herein applied for upgradation from B-category to A-category Contractor on 11.6.2001, but while submitting application for upgradation, petitioner also submitted certain documents, thereby showing details of works done amounting to Rs.
2,10,40,338/-. Apart from above, he also provided details with regard to three works done above Rs.25.00 lac amounting to Rs. 35,77,327/-, Rs.
28,78,584/- and Rs. 30,05,629/-, respectively. Initially, file was dealt by Senior Assistant Sh. Surender Kumar, who vide Notes No. 6 to 11 sent the application filed by the petitioner for upgradation for consideration by the Enlistment Committee meeting scheduled to be held on 9.7.2021 .
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS3 2024:HHC:6552
3. The Enlistment Committee headed by the Chief Engineer, HPPWD .
Harbans Kumar, D.P. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Vijay Kapoor, Executive Engineer and B.R. Sharma, Deputy Controller, who after having received the application as well as documents annexed therewith returned the application making observation that Contractor has not executed the required works costing Rs. 25.00 lac i.e. three works as per the certificate issued by the concerned Executive Engineer and asked the petitioner to complete the documents. Pursuant to aforesaid observation made by the Enlistment Committee, petitioner vide letter dated 18.7.2001, again submitted his application for upgradation, enclosing therein new certificate issued by the competent authority with regard to work done by him.
4. While applying afresh, vide letter dated 18.7.2001, petitioner brought to the notice of the Committee that department had split up the estimate of NABARD Projects for better performance and timely completion of targeted projects and due to which reason, the works were executed against different agreements whereas the work was same and more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. Along with the aforesaid application, petitioner submitted certificate issued by the Executive Engineers of Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions. Finally, Enlistment Committee vide communication dated 4.8.2001, after having perused the documents/performance certificates ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:6552 issued by the Executive Engineer of the aforesaid Divisions ordered .
upgradation of the petitioner from B-category to A-category Contractor.
After seven years of passing of order dated 4.8.2001, one political outfit i.e. BJP, submitted charge sheet as detailed herein above, referring therein issue with regard to illegalities committed by the Public Works Department while ordering upgradation of few contractors including the petitioner from B-category to A-category.
5. On the basis of aforesaid charge sheet, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioner as well as number of officials of the Public Works Department, wherein it came to be alleged that the petitioner herein in conspiracy with Anil Viswas, the then Executive Engineer, Karsog and Tek Singh Thakur, the then Executive Engineer, Sundernagar, got the certificates issued despite knowing that he has not executed three works of value of more than Rs. 25.00 lac and has not executed the total work of Rs.
125.00 lacs, as required under Rule 6(d) of Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department 1967 Amended vide Notification dated 12.3.1993. In nutshell, it came to be alleged in the FIR sought to be quashed that petitioner in connivance with the dealing hand of the HPPWD and members of the Enlistment Committee, as detailed herein above, wrongly and illegally got himself upgraded from B-category to ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:6552 A-category Contractor on the basis of certificates issued by the Executive .
Engineers of Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions, which are false and contrary to the record.
6. After lodging of FIR sought to be quashed, prosecution applied for sanction of prosecution to prosecute the co-accused namely Chief Engineer Harbans Lal (Chairman), Dharmpal Sharma, S.E., Vijay Kumar Kapoor, Executive Engineer, Bhagat Ram Sharma Deputy Controller (F&A) and Anil Viswas, who, in one way or the other, were involved in dealing the application submitted by the petitioner for upgradation of his license from B-category to A-category Contractor.
7. Since no prosecution sanction was ever accorded by the Department against the aforesaid officials except one Surinder Kumar, dealing hand, their names came to be dropped from the final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC. Mr. Tek Singh Thakur, who had allegedly issued false certificate in favour of the petitioner being Executive Engineer Sundernagar and Bhagat Ram Sharma, Deputy Controller (F&A), Member of Enlistment Committee have expired.
8. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 6 2024:HHC:6552 that no case much less under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and .
Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the petitioner and FIR sought to be quashed is politically motivated.
9. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioner while making this Court peruse contents of the FIR as well as evidence adduced on record by the prosecution vehemently argued that bare perusal of inquiry report clearly reveals that case initiated against the petitioner is politically motivated. He submitted that since no challan ever came to be filed against members of the Enlistment Committee as well as two Executive Engineers, who had allegedly issued Work Done Certificate on account of refusal by the Department of Personnel to grant prosecution sanction against them, no case much less under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, can be otherwise proved against the petitioner. He submitted that basic ingredients required for bringing the case under Section 420 IPC are also missing. Mr. Kochhar submitted that since it is admitted case of the prosecution that petitioner did not prepare any document, rather documents were issued by the Executive Engineers that too in discharge of their official capacity, it is not understood that how and on what basis, prosecution has registered cases against the petitioner. He submitted that ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:6552 since to bring the case in the ambit of Sections 468 and 471, it is .
mandatory upon the prosecution to prove forging of document as defined under Sections 463 and 464 and in the case at hand, documents produced by the petitioner at the time of making application for enlistment were issued by the Executive Engineers of the department, no case under the aforesaid provisions of law can be said to be made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that as per inquiry report, 171 contractors were found to be listed/upgraded by the Enlistment Committee during the government headed by the Congress Party, but yet prosecution picked up the petitioner for inquiry and thereafter, on frivolous grounds, proceeded to charge him under the relevant provisions of law as has been taken note herein above. He further submitted that as per record, matter was deliberated upon by the Senior Designated Officials, who after examining the record categorically, concluded that no vigilance angle was found and as such, in similar 170 cases, with a view to avoid wastage of time and manpower/resources, case was returned back to the department alongwith complaint for taking action at the departmental level. Mr. Kochhar, while making this Court peruse report submitted by the Committee constituted pursuant to directions/decision of State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Shimla, submitted that after scrutinizing the enlistment record case wise, Committee categorically concluded that in 93 cases out of 171 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 8 2024:HHC:6552 cases, Enlistment Committee has acted as per the Enlistment Rules and .
only in 32 cases, the Committee has not acted as per Rules, but it appears that at that time, there was paucity of higher category of contractors in the State of Himachal Pradesh, for implementation of Central Sponsored Scheme Works under NABARD, PMGSY etc. He submitted that Committee in its report specifically concluded that in order to meet the requirement of class/ category of contractors, minor lapses, which were overlooked, cannot be termed as individual favoritism and this was done only to create sufficient higher class of contractors as large number of eligible contractors were not coming forward for tendering process. While referring to copy of inquiry report dated 9.3.2017, constituted by the Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Kochhar submitted that finding of inquiry was sent to Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau (SR) Shimla vide letter dated 5.9.2017, who forwarded the same to the government, which on its own level after due deliberations accepted the finding and matter was closed. Mr. Kochhar submitted that since petitioner was also at par and similarly situate with other persons, who were upgraded from B-category to A-category Contractor, there was no occasion, if any, for the police to launch prosecution against him, rather same appears to have been purposely initiated against him to settle the political scores. He also submitted that otherwise, there is ambiguity in the notification qua the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 9 2024:HHC:6552 requirement of having executed three works of amount higher than Rs.
.
25.00 lacs, for becoming eligible for upgradation of contractors from B-
category to A-category and in that regard, the Additional Director General of Police, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Shimla, vide letter dated 20.10.2012 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, seeking clarification/explanation on the point that keeping in view the fact that B-Class Contractor is eligible to work upto Rs. 25.00 lac only and for upgradation to A-Class, he should have executed at least three works of not less than Rs. 25.00 lacs each with aggregate of all works being not less than 125 lacs, therefore, it is not clear as per notification as to how a B-Class Contractor, who is eligible to tender for works up to Rs.25.00 lacs can only execute three works of not less than 25 lacs for upgradation to Class-A Contractor. Aforesaid clarification, was subsequently answered by the Engineer-in-Chief to a questionnaire raised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mandi, wherein he submitted that decision in this regard is/was to be taken by the Committee and it was within their discretion to consider the case of the petitioner in light of notification dated 12.3.1993. Lastly, Mr. Kochhar, contended that since evidence adduced on record is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed by him, continuance of trial, if permitted, would amount to sheer abuse of ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 10 2024:HHC:6552 process of law. He submitted that since in all probabilities, case of .
prosecution for the reasons submitted by him, is likely to fail, no fruitful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to the ordeal of the protracted trial, which is otherwise likely to culminate in acquittal of the accused.
10. While refusing the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the impugned action against the petitioner. He submitted that though FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged after submission of charge sheet by the political outfit, but bare perusal of contents of the FIR as well as final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC clearly reveals that petitioner in connivance with officials of Public Works Department got himself illegally upgraded from B-category to A-category contractor. He submitted that though petitioner herein had not completed three works amounting to Rs. 25.00 lac, each in a year, yet he furnished Work Done Certificates, showing him to have completed three works of more than Rs. 25.00 lac each in last one year. Mr. Kahol submitted that no doubt, certificates of work done were issued by the Executive Engineers of the concerned divisions, but such fact cannot absolve the petitioner from allegations leveled against him that he ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 11 2024:HHC:6552 furnished forged documents. He submitted that since certificate issued by .
two Executive Engineers of the divisions concerned were not based upon the records and such certificates were used by the petitioner for getting him enlisted as A-Class Contractor, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the police by lodging FIR under the aforesaid provisions of law against the petitioner. He further submitted that though no prosecution sanction ever came to be accorded to prosecute the members of the Enlistment Committee as well as two Executive Engineers, who had allegedly issued the Work Done Certificates, but that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to quash the FIR especially, when one of the official Surender Kumar Dealing Assistant, who had actually forwarded the application of the petitioner, is accused alongwith the petitioner. He submitted that as per Rule 6(d) of the Rules for Enlistment of B-category to A-category, an applicant should have completed at least three works of not less than Rs.25 lacs each and the aggregate of all works executed should not have been less than Rs.125 Lacs, however, in the instant case, though no work of Rs. 25 lac was done by the petitioner, but yet he dishonestly procured fictitious document of higher amount with an intention to get him enlisted as A-Class Contractor, which action of his makes him liable to be prosecuted. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since at the time of resubmission of the application, it was in his knowledge ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 12 2024:HHC:6552 that the documents being annexed with the application are fake, but .
despite that he submitted such documents alongwith the application and as such, he rightly came to be booked under Section 420 of IPC. Mr. Kahol, submitted that since FIR has culminated into charge sheet, petition for quashing of FIR is not maintainable. He submitted that otherwise also, this is not fit a case where this court can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC, to quash the FIR, especially when there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record to connect the petitioner with offence alleged to have been committed by him.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
12. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 13 2024:HHC:6552 Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid .
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is being reproduced herein below:-
"7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the 513 inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS
14 2024:HHC:6552 and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and .
contours of that salient jurisdiction."
14. Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections 397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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, quashed the proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS15 2024:HHC:6552
15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of .
Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, while drawing strength from its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. While invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 16 2024:HHC:6552 aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) .
9 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30)
29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 17 2024:HHC:6552 reject and discard the accusations levelled by the .
prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 18 2024:HHC:6552 justice?
.
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259, has held as under:
"12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified 9 by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following three broad categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482:
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS19 2024:HHC:6552
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against .
the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."
14.In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside :
"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no 10 prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the d iscretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like".
15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 20 2024:HHC:6552 comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue .
would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts."
17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under S. 482 CrPC.
18. From the bare perusal of aforesaid exposition of law, it is quite apparent that while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., High Court can proceed to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 21 2024:HHC:6552 conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of .
process of the law.
19. Now being guided by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, this court would make an endeavour to find out "whether FIR sought to be quashed discloses offence, if any, punishable under Sections 420,468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and evidentiary material collected on record by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the accused named in the FIR with the alleged commission of offence or not?
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that though prayer made by the petitioner for his upgradation from B-category to A-category Contractor was accepted vide communication dated 4.8.2001, but challenge to the same came to be laid for the first time in the year 2008, when one political outfit i.e. Bharatiya Janata Party, submitted charge sheet to his Excellency, The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein irregularities committed by the officials of the Public Works Department while ordering upgradation of Contractors from B-category to A-category.
21. In nutshell, case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he with a view to get himself upgraded from B-category to A-category wrongly submitted two Work Done Certificates, thereby showing him to ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 22 2024:HHC:6552 have completed three works of more than Rs. 25.00 lac each, however, this .
Court finds from the record that Work Done Certificates adduced on record by the petitioner alongwith his application for upgradation were not prepared/manufactured by the petitioner, rather those were issued by two persons namely Anil Kumar Viswas and Tek Singh Thakur, Executive Engineers of the Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions, respectively, wherein they categorically certified that petitioner being B-class contractor has executed more than three works of Rs.25.00 lac in their respective divisions.
Having perused aforesaid documents issued by the Executive Engineers named herein above, this Court is compelled to agree with Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that once it is not in dispute that these documents were issued by the concerned Executive Engineers in their official capacity, observation made in the final report under Section 173 CrPC that petitioner with a view to get himself enlisted in A-Class category, fraudulently prepared and submitted those documents, is factually incorrect. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the provisions contained under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC, which read as under:
"463. Forgery-[Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS
23 2024:HHC:6552 to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with .
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document. --A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--
First -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a)makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b)makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c)affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d)makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly -- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 24 2024:HHC:6552 not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the .
nature of the alteration."
22. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law reveals that whosoever makes any false document with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document has been issued by a competent authority shall be deemed to have committed forgery, which is punishable under Section 465 IPC. Basic elements of forgery are-(1) the making of a false document or part of it and (2) Such making should be with such intention as is specified in the section i.e. (a) to cause damage or infringe to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property, or (d) to cause person to enter into an express or implied contract;
or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2011) 5 SCC 708, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"21.Bearing in mind the object, scope and width of power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., enunciated above, the question for 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 10 (1992) 4 SCC 305 consideration is whether on facts in hand, the High Court was correct in law in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under the said Section?::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS
25 2024:HHC:6552
22.Having examined the case in light of the allegations in the .
Chargesheet, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in the matter cannot be flawed and deserves to be affirmed.
23. It is manifest from a bare reading of the Chargesheet, placed on record, that the gravamen of the allegations against the appellant as also the co-accused is that the Company, acting through its directors in concert with the Chartered Accountants and some other persons:
(i) conceived a criminal conspiracy and executed it by forging and fabricating a number of documents, like photographs of old machines, purchase orders and invoices showing purchase of machinery in order to support their claim to avail hire purchase loan from PSB;
(ii) on the strength of these false documents, PSB parted with the money by issuing pay orders & demand drafts in favour of the Company and
(iii) the accused opened six fictitious accounts in the banks (four accounts in Bank of Rajasthan and two in Bank of Madura) to encash the pay orders/bank drafts issued by PSB in favour of the suppliers of machines, thereby directly rotating back the loan amount to the borrower from these fictitious accounts, and in the process committed a systematic fraud on the Bank (PSB) and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves.
Precise details of all the fictitious accounts as also the further flow of money realised on encashment of demand drafts/pay orders have been incorporated in the Chargesheet. Additionally, by allegedly claiming depreciation on the new machinery, which was never purchased, on the basis of forged invoices etc.; the accused cheated the public exchequer as well.
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS26 2024:HHC:6552
24.As afore-stated, in the Chargesheet, the accused are alleged to .
have committed offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 IPC. We feel that at this preliminary stage of proceedings, it would neither be desirable nor proper to return a final finding as to whether the essential ingredients of the said Sections are satisfied. For the purpose of the present appeal, it will suffice to observe that on a conspectus of the factual scenario, noted above, prima facie, the Chargesheet does disclose the commission of offences by the appellant under the afore-noted Sections.
27. As stated above, in the instant case more than sufficient circumstances exist suggesting the hatching of criminal conspiracy and forgery of several documents leading to commission of the aforementioned Sections. We refrain from saying more on the subject at this juncture, lest it may cause prejudice to the appellant or the prosecution.
28.We may now advert to the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant (supra), on which great emphasis was laid, on behalf of the appellant. In that case a Chargesheet was filed by the CBI against the accused under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation under the Chargesheet was that the accused 11 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 persons had conspired with each other in fraudulently diverting the funds of the Bank. Offence alleging forgery was also included in the Chargesheet. In the meantime, the suit for recovery of money filed by the Bank against the Company, to which the appellant in that case was also a party, was disposed of on a written compromise arrived at between the parties. Consequent upon ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 27 2024:HHC:6552 the compromise of the suit and having regard to the contents of .
clause 11 of the consent terms, which stipulated that neither party had any claim against the other and parties were withdrawing all allegations and counter allegations made against each other, the said appellant filed an application for discharge. The application was rejected by the trial court. A petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was also dismissed by the High Court.
29.In further appeal to this Court, accepting the contention of the appellant that this Court could transcend the limitation imposed under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and pass orders quashing criminal proceedings even where non compoundable offences were involved, quashing the criminal proceedings the Court observed thus:
"30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 28 2024:HHC:6552 technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the .
quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise." [Emphasis supplied]
30. A bare reading of the afore-extracted paragraphs would indicate that the question posed for consideration in that case was with regard to the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances of a given case and not in relation to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where it should exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. In our opinion, Nikhil Merchant (supra) does not hold as an absolute proposition of law that whenever a dispute between the parties, having overtones of a civil dispute with criminal facets is settled between them, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, should be quashed.
31. Similarly, in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, which has been relied upon in Nikhil Merchant (supra), the question for consideration was whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or Complaint for offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that Section 320 cannot limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., a well settled proposition of law. We are of the opinion that Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677, as also the other two judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellant are clearly distinguishable on facts.
33. In the present case, having regard to the modus operandi adopted by the accused, as projected in the Chargesheet and briefly ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 29 2024:HHC:6552 referred to in para 17 (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that it .
is not a fit case for exercise 12 (2005) 4 SCC 649 13 (2002) 3 SCC 496 of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as also by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. As noted above, the accused had not only duped PSB, they had also availed of depreciation on the machinery, which was never purchased and used by them, causing loss to the exchequer, a serious economic offence against the society.
34.The view we have taken above, gets fortified by a recent decision of this Court in Rumi Dhar (supra), wherein while dealing with a fact situation, akin to the present case, referring to the decision in Nikhil Merchant (supra), the Court declined to quash criminal proceedings in that case, observing thus:
"24. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. Exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Court, in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, would not direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing the charge."
35.We respectfully concur with the afore-extracted observations. In the final analysis, we hold that merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability. Therefore, the Chargesheet against him cannot be quashed.
36.In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The Trial Court shall now ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 30 2024:HHC:6552 proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible without being .
influenced by any observations made by the High Court or in this judgment on the merits of the Chargesheet."
23. In the case at hand, precise allegation against the petitioner is that he while making application for upgradation from B-category to A-
category submitted two Work Done Certificates issued by the Executive Engineers of Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions. Careful perusal of aforesaid certificates submitted by the petitioner nowhere suggests that those were manufactured/forged by him, rather such documents were issued by the Executive Engineers of the Divisions concerned in discharge of their official duties, wherein they certified that petitioner has executed three works of more than Rs.25.00 lac in their respective divisions. If it is so, it is not understood how case, if any, is made out against the petitioner under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, especially when basic ingredients of Sections 463 and 464 of IPC, which define forgery and making of a false document, are totally missing.
24. Similarly this Court finds that no case under Section 420 of IPC, is made out against the petitioner. Section 420 of IPC reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 31 2024:HHC:6552 security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description .
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
25. To invoke aforesaid provision of law, prosecution is under obligation to prove that accused had dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is otherwise sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC.
26. In the case at hand, this Court finds that application for upgradation was submitted by the petitioner on two occasions. At the first instance, Enlistment Committee returned the application with the observation that Contractor has not executed the required works costing to Rs. 25.00 lac as per certificates issued by the concerned Executive Engineers and asked the petitioner to complete the documents, however, in application dated 18.7.2001, petitioner again furnished those certificates, but this time, he clarified that department had split up the estimates of NABARD Projects for better performance and timely completion being targeted projects, due to which reason, the works were executed against different agreements whereas, the work was same and more than Rs.
25,00,000/-. The Committee after having accepted the aforesaid explanation itself accepted certificates issued by their own officers i.e. Executive Engineers of Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions. Since petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 32 2024:HHC:6552 herein submitted the Work Done Certificates issued by the competent .
authority coupled with the fact that while making the application, he had clarified that two certificates qua one work have been purposely issued for the reason that taking note of the magnitude of the work, department itself had splitted the work and thereafter, two different agreements were executed, whereas work was the same. Since two different agreements were executed, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the Executive Engineers while certifying that the petitioner has completed three works of more than 25.00 lac in their respective divisions.
Since there is no cogent and convincing evidence that the petitioner had intention to cheat and dishonestly induce the Member of Committee while making his application for enlistment, no case otherwise can be said be sustainable against the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC.
27. Leaving everything aside, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that persons, who had actually issued the certificates, which are otherwise bone of contention, could not be made accused for want of prosecution sanction by the Department of Personnel. Neither member of Enlistment Committee, who after having taken note of the certificates and after being satisfied by the explanation rendered on record by the petitioner with regard to splitting of estimates of the NABARD projects, proceeded to ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 33 2024:HHC:6552 order upgradation of the petitioner from B-category to A-category, nor .
officers responsible for issuing the certificates of work done, are the accused, may be for want of prosecution sanction, but certainly that has weakened the prosecution case.
28. Though at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the reply filed by the department, attempted to argue that the department though had applied for sanction of prosecution against the Member of Enlistment Committee and Executive Engineers responsible to issue certificates, but such fact, if any, may not be of much relevance.
Mere impleadment of one official Surender as an accused may not be sufficient to prove the case because he has simply forwarded the applications submitted by the petitioner to the Enlistment Committee, which after being satisfied with the genuineness and correctness of the certificates submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to order upgradation of his licence from B-category to A-category.
29. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that though pursuant to inquiry constituted after submission of charge sheet by a political outfit, as detailed herein above, Enquiry Officer categorically concluded that 171 cases were considered by the Enlistment Committee for upgradation and out of them, 93 were found to have been considered ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 34 2024:HHC:6552 strictly in terms of rules, whereas in some of the cases, rules were not .
adhered to, but that too with a view to ensure healthy competition. Since sufficient A-Class Contractors were not available within the State of Himachal Pradesh and number of projects under NABARD and PMGSY could only be executed by the A-Class Contractor, Enlistment Committee ignoring minor defects in the application proceeded to order upgradation of such of the contractors whose performance was otherwise found to be up to mark in their previous works.
30. Interestingly, in the case at hand, 32 applications were not found to be dealt with in accordance with rules, but yet prosecution picked up the petitioner and lodged FIR against him, which is subject matter of the present case. It is not in dispute that finding returned by the Committee headed by the Engineer-in-Chief was accepted by the government and case was closed. If it is so, where was the occasion for the prosecution to pick up the petitioner and register case against him, which otherwise appears to be totally baseless for the reasons discussed herein above.
31. Evidence collected on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. Basic ingredients of forgery and cheating are missing, ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 35 2024:HHC:6552 as a result thereof, trial, if any, pursuant to FIR sought to be quashed is .
likely to fail in all probabilities.
32. Moreover, this Court finds that during investigation of the case, learned Additional Director General of Police, State Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau, had sought certain clarifications vide communication dated 18.10.2012 (available at page 217 of the paper book), wherein he raised following queries:
"4. "B" class contractor is eligible to tender for works upto 25 lacs and for up-gradation to "A" class he should have executed at least 3 works of not less than 25 lacs each with aggregate of all works being not less than 125 lacs. Therefore, it is not clear, as per this notification as to how can a "B" class contractor who is eligible to tender for works upto 25 lacs only can execute 3 works of not less than 25 lacs, to be eligible for up-gradation to class-A
5. For up-gradation purpose, the contractors of "B" class can not be imposed condition of three works of amounts higher than they are eligible to execute. On the analogy of classes "D" and "C," the amount for 3 works for up-gradation to class" A" should have been less than 25 lacs.
6. Since case FIR Nos.17&20/11 have been registered at P.S SV&ACB Mandi on the basis of the notification, High Court is likely to seek justification/explanation as par contents of this notification."
33. Having taken note of the aforesaid letter, Principal Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 8.11.2012, requested the Secretary, HPPWD, to look into the matter and ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 36 2024:HHC:6552 ultimately, clarification came to be issued by the Engineer-in-Chief vide .
communication dated 24.5.2023 (Annexure P-11) and vide Annexure P-12 (available at page 229), he answered in following manner:
"1. हमाचल दे श सरकार लोक नमाण वभाग क अ धसच ू ना सं या PBW (B&R)-19-87 dated 12.03.1993 वारा वभाग म ठे केदार के पंजीकरण हे तु ग ठत स म त वारा उपल ध माण के आधार पर इस बारे उ चत नणय लया जाता है ।
2. इस बारे कोई प ट दशा नदश नह ं है तथा सरकार वारा अ धसू चत स म त वारा गण ु वता के आधार पर नणय अपे त है क Split up काय को एक माना जाता है अथवा नह ं ।
3.इस बारे केवल सरकार वारा अ धसू चत स म त वारा ह नणय लया जाना वां छत है ।
4.इस बारे उपर मांक 2 पर ि थ त प ट क गई है ।
5. जैसा क मांक 1 पर प ट कया गया है सरकार वारा नयम के अनुसार अ धसू चत स म त वारा ह इस बारे नणय लया जाता है ।"
34. In nutshell, Engineer-in-Chief clarified that since there are no clear instructions qua consideration of split up works as one work, it was the discretion of the Committee to take a decision. In case XEN Karsog had issued a Work Done Certificate to the petitioner above Rs.25.00 lacs for split up work, relating to the works executed of Paddar Tattapani Road and Slappar Tattapani Road. Aforesaid clarification issued by the Engineer-in-
Chief pursuant to inquiry raised by the Additional Director General of Police, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, in the FIR sought to be quashed, clearly suggests that work done certificates annexed by the petitioner alongwith the application for enlistment were issued by the Executive Engineers of Karsog and Sundernagar Divisions and such ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 37 2024:HHC:6552 documents were never prepared/forged by the petitioner and decision with .
regard to applicability of the same qua the claim of the petitioner for enlistment could only be decided by the Enlistment Committee, especially when there were no clear instructions qua the split up works as one work.
35. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that at the first instance, the Enlistment Committee had refused to take into consideration the certificate issued by the XEN Karsog, but certainly thereafter pursuant to fresh application filed by the petitioner, wherein he again enclosed the certificates issued by the XENs of divisions concerned, the Enlistment Committee being satisfied with the explanation rendered on record by the petitioner, proceeded to accept the certificates and accordingly, ordered for his upgradation from B-category to A-category Contractor.
36. Having scanned the entire evidence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that at no stage, the petitioner has ever attempted to cheat and dishonesty induce Member of the Enlistment Committee to grant him undue benefit of enlistment, rather he truthfully on the basis of genuine documents issued by the officials/XENs of different divisions submitted his application, making therein prayer for upgradation from B-
category to A-category Contractor. If it is so, no case much less under the aforesaid provisions of law can be said to have been made against the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS 38 2024:HHC:6552 petitioner. There is no evidence to suggest criminal conspiracy inter-se .
petitioner and the another accused.
37. Since for the discussion made herein above, case of the prosecution is likely to fail in any eventuality, this Court finds the case at hand to be fit for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR as well as consequent proceedings. Trial, if any, pursuant to aforesaid FIR, if permitted to continue, would unnecessarily subject the petitioner to ordeal of the protracted trial, which is bound to culminate in acquittal of the accused.
38. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), present petition is allowed and FIR No.17/11 dated 11.3.2011, registered at State Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as consequent proceedings, alongwith consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
July 31, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2024 20:29:18 :::CIS