Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anjan Kishore Bajpai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20106 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANJAN KISHORE BAJPAI S/O SHRI RAM KISHORE
BAJPAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE BEHIND JAIN DEGREE COLLEGE LAXMI
NAGAR BHIND MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR (TREASURY) BHIND DISTRICT
BHIND , (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COMMISSIONER, ACCOUNTS AND
TREASURY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, ACCOUNTS AND
TREASURY , GWALIOR DISTRICT GWALIOR ,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHIND DISTRICT
BHIND , (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK BHIND
DISTRICT BHIND , (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CITY KOTWALI,
BHIND DIST. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 17-Aug-23
12:50:53 PM
2
(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2, whereby on the basis of an exparte inquiry conducted by respondent No.4 the respondent No.6 has been directed to lodge an FIR against the alleged embezzlement of Rs.1,12,37,836/- against the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who at present is working as an accountant at the office of the Block Education Officer, Bhind. Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts and Commissioner, Treasury and accounts have directed to conduct an inquiry with regard to certain embezzlement in the department for which a team was constituted and the matter was inquired into and in the said inquiry it was found that embezzlement to the tune of Rs.1,12,37,836/- had taken place during the tenure of the present petitioner. The matter was informed by respondent No.7 to the Collector. On the said information received by the Collector directions were issued to respondent No.6 i.e. District Education Officer, Bhind vide impugned letter dated 24.07.2023 to get an FIR registered against the present petitioner and inform him accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the said order/letter issued by Collector, Bhind apprehends that in view of directions issued, registration of FIR is inevitable and respondent No.6 would be compelled to lodge an FIR against the present petitioner which is impermissible in law.
It was further contended that the inquiry which is alleged to have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 17-Aug-23 12:50:53 PM 3 conducted in the matter which is made the basis for issuance of directions by the Collector was behind the back of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is not guilty and if the FIR is lodged, the petitioner would be prejudiced as he will have to face criminal prosecution for no rhyme and reason. It was further submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vinod Agrwal vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Mdt., Gwalior and others i n W.P. No.8793/2021 passed on 20.05.2021 had dealt with the similar issue and placing reliance in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. reported in (2014)2 SCC 1, it had directed the concerned police station not to consider such directives and inquire into the matter and there upon decide as to whether the information supplied reveals commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner or not. It was further submitted that if similar orders or directives are issued to the respondents/police authorities, then the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.
Per contra, Shri S.S. Kushwah, learned Govt. Advocate for the State submits that from bare perusal of Annexure P/1, it would be evident that it is an embezzlement of more than One Crore rupees and on an inquiry conducted at the behest of Joint Director and Commissioner, Accounts and Treasury, the involvement of the petitioner is writ large and, therefore, the directions issued by the Collector dated 24.07.2023 to the District Education Officer to initiate appropriate criminal action against the present petitioner cannot be faulted with and the present petition being devoid of any substance be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Agrwal (Supra) after analyzing the dictum in the matter of Lalita Kumari (Supra) had observed as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 17-Aug-23 12:50:53 PM 4"Law as regards provision of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The moment Police receives information from any quarter(complainant, victim or even stranger) which discloses commission of cognizable offence as defined in Cr.P.C., then Police is obliged in law to register FIR u/S.154 Cr.P.C. and proceed ahead with the investigation.
However, there are certain offences where the Police to extended liberty to conduct short enquiry only to find out as to whether information discloses cognizable offence or not to go into veracity of the allegation contained in the information as held by Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P.(2014) 2 SCC 1 relevant extract of which is reproduced below:
"Conclusion/Directions:
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:120.1 Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of acognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing thecomplaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must besupplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence."
Apprehension of the petitioner is basically founded upon the directives contained in Annexure P-1 which according to Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 17-Aug-23 12:50:53 PM 5 petitioner leaves no scope for the Police to exercise its discretion even if information does not reveal commission of any cognizable offence.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on admission, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served if direction is issued to the Police to perform its statutory duty u/S.154 Cr.P.C. without being influenced by any extraneous consideration.
Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with direction that the concerned Police will not only consider Annexure P-1 but also enquiry report dated 03.04.2021 Annexure P-5, which according to petitioner is exonerative in nature qua petitioner before deciding as to whether the information supplied reveals commission of cognizable offence against petitioner or not. This Court has no manner of doubt that the Police will apply its independent mind while exercising its statutory obligation u/S.154 Cr.P.C. and shall not be persuaded alone by the directives contained in Annexure P-1 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Co-operative Societies.
With the above said direction, this petition stands disposed of, sans cost."
In the present matter also the apprehension of the petitioner is basically founded upon the directives contained in Annexure P/1 which according to petitioner leaves no scope for the Police to exercise its discretion even if the information does not reveal commission of any cognizable offence.
Though on mere apprehension writ cannot be issued but looking to the short controversy involved in the present matter, concerned Police Authorities are directed that if such information is received by them, they would adhered to and perform their statutory duties as provided under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. without getting influenced by the order of this Court.
This Court hopes and trusts that the police authorities would not only consider the information provided to them with regard to lodging of the FIR, but would also consider any other material which is seized or provided to them Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 17-Aug-23 12:50:53 PM 6 during the course of inquiry.
T his Court has no manner of doubt that the Police will apply its independent mind while exercising its statutory obligation u/S.154 Cr.P.C. and shall not be persuaded alone by the directives contained in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 issued by the Collector and District Education Officer respectively.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 17-Aug-23 12:50:53 PM