Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnarayan @ Rudra Narayan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8499 of 2009
Between:-
ASHOK HEERALAL PRADHAN S/O LATE SHRI H.L.
PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR S , R/O F-1,
JALTARANG COLONY, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF P.H.E.
PROJECT DIVISION, CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(MR. MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR. QAZI FAKHRUDDIN - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S.UMARIYA
DISTT. UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. NALINI GURANG - PANEL LAWYER )
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1355 of 2019
Between:-
1. RAMNARAYAN @ RUDRA NARAYAN SHUKLA S/O
KAMLAKANT SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O H. NO. 172-173 STARCITY VIJAYNAGAR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHOK HEERALAL PRADHAN S/O SHRI
HEERALAL PRADHAN , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
9A-459 SAKET NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(MR. K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR. ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P. S.
UMARIYA UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. NALINI GURANG - PANEL LAWYER )
Both these petitions are coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
2 The petitioner - Ashok Heeralal Pradhan has filed petition bearing M.Cr.C. No.8499/2009 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 104/2007 registered with Police Station Umariya, District Umariya (M.P.).
T h e petitioner Ashok Heeralal Pradhan and other co-accused Ramnarayan @ Rudra Narayan Shukla have also filed Criminal Revision No.1355/2019 under Section 397/401 of the C.P.C. against order dated 05.01.2019 and 30.05.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Umariya (M.P.) in S.T. No.17/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and charges under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were framed against the present petitioners.
Both the cases were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
The brief facts of the case are that, in the year 2007-08, at the time of incident the applicant No.2 - Ashok Heeralal Pradhan was posted as the then Executive Engineer in the Department of PHE Umariya and the petitioner No.1
- R.N. Shukla was functioning as Managing Director of an NGO namely, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Gramin Vikas Shodh Avam Prashikshan Sansthan. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- through a cheque was granted by the petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 for the purpose of construction of 2000 lavatories for some beneficiaries of 27 villages of District Umariya. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 constructed only 160 lavatories, in which total expenditure was about Rs.1,00,000/- only and rest of the amount has allegedly been misappropriated by petitioner No.2.
I n M.Cr.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations, the petitioner was in connivance with R.N. Shukla. Thus, FIR has been registered against the petitioner and R.N. Shukla under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code because the petitioner was posted there. It is alleged that there is no evidence against petitioner Ashok 3 Heeralal Pradhan and before disbursement of an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- he called for the report from the various concerning Panchayats and the same was also verified by the then Assistant Engineer PHE Mr. D.P. Tiwari (Annexure A-3). After some time, question was raised in the Vidhan Sabha of M.P. in which the concerned Department gave its reply t h a t verification of construction of lavatories has been done by Sarpanch/Secretary/of the concerned Panchayat of beneficiaries (Annexure A-4). FIR also indicates that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the allegations are absurd and baseless. FIR is manifestly filed with malafide or with an ulterior motive hence, prayer is made to quash the FIR.
In criminal revision No., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been named in the FIR which was lodged immediately after a letter received by the Police from Heera Singh Dhruve, the Executive Engineer of the Department, without conducting any inquiry and investigation. The charges framed by the learned trial Court are only on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Police. It was argued that no original document was produced before the trial Court. Hence, prayer is made to set aside the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by learned Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioners and the order framing charge dated 05.01.2019 against the present petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Panel Code.
Learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners . On being asked by Mrs. Gurang, learned Panel Lawyer it was replied by her that Police Station informed that the original documents have been produced before the trial Court. Therefore, it can be called by this Court any time.
Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the cases. After perusal of material available on record as well as case diary, it is apparent that petitioner No.1 R.N. Shukla was entrusted for constructing 2000 lavatories in beneficiaries of 32 Gram Panchayats were approved for 4 construction of lavatories but till lodging of the FIR only 160 lavatories were constructed and expenditure of Rs.1 Lakh was incurred. The petitioner No.2 who was the Executive Engineer without carrying any physical verification, issued two cheques bearing cheque No.325302 on 12.04.2006 of Rs.2,50,000/- and another cheque No.0325306 on 20.04.2006 of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of R.N. Shukla as an advance payment. When the petitioner No.2 was transferred to another District, he wrongfully showed adjustment of the said amount in the account of aforesaid NGO and he also approved forged bills and certificates for payment of Rs.11,50,000/-. Thereby, they caused monetary loss of Rs.11,50,000/- to the Government by not constructing remaining 1840 lavatories. Vide order dated 31.03.2006, it was directed to the petitioner No.2 to use this huge amount for the same purpose and give information to the Court with progress report but nothing was done by him. It is apparent that petitioner No.2 was also involved with petitioner No.1 - R.N. Shukla. Sufficient evidences are available on record against both the petitioners. Prima facie, it appears that intentionally and willfully the petitioner No.2 transferred a huge amount in favour of the petitioner No.1.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, the learned trial Court has rightly framed charges under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against both the petitioners, therefore, prayer for quashing the FIR as well as charges framed against them are not liable to be allowed.
Hence, both the petitions being devoid of merit, stand dismissed at admission stage.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE shahina Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 2022.04.13 18:05:55 IST