Chattisgarh High Court
Shatruhan Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 August, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 382 of 2018
Vivek Singh Chandel S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Singh Chandel Aged
About 52 Years Occupation S E C L Librarian, R/o Village Kushmunda
Police Station House Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora, District Korba
Chhattisgarh Present Address Dream City, D-62 Village Khamtarai, P.
S. H. Sarkandatahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Kusmunda
District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
AND CRMP No. 394 of 2018 Anand Sahu S/o Shri Rambilas Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation Store Keepar- Godown, S E C L Gevra Project, R/o Near Industrial Area, Khari Mora Korba Police Station House Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent AND CRMP No. 624 of 2018 Satya Prakash Singh S/o Shri Ramlal Singh Aged About 51 Years Occupation Mining Sardar Dipika Colliery Korba R/o M Q 833 Pragati Nagar- Dipika Police Station House Dipika Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent -2- AND CRMP No. 632 of 2018 Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Balaji Gupta Aged About 49 Years Occupation Electrician Secl Somwari Bazar Dipika District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent AND CRMP No. 646 of 2018 Shatruhan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Jhingut Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years Occupation Fitter Secl, Qtr. No. Mq-20, Shakti Nagar Gevra Project District Korba Chhattisgarh R/o Village Shivrinarayan Police Station House Shivrinarayan Tahsil District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Verma, Mr. Gajendra Sahu and Mr. Arvind Shukla, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.08.2023
1. The petitioners have challenged the FIR registered against them at the Police Station - Kusmunda, District Korba and the subsequent criminal cases which are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora.
-3-
2. The facts of the cases are as under:
(i) CRMP No. 382 of 2018: A report was lodged by one Garun Singh against the petitioner on 27.11.1999 to the effect that his land was acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Gevra Project and the compensation was paid. The petitioner got employment in the SECL according to a scheme floated by the SECL to provide a job in the SECL to one of the members of land oustees. The allegation against the petitioner is that he secured a job in the SECL by submitting a false nomination whereas; he was not related to the land oustee, namely Garun Singh. The order of appointment was issued on 04.01.1999. The police investigated the case and the petitioner was arrested on 27.11.1999 whereas, the final report was filed on 09.05.2007 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. An application for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was moved and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court on 27.11.2017.
(ii) CRMP No. 394 of 2018: A report was lodged by one Dubraj Singh S/o Pathar Singh against the petitioner on 24.07.1999 to the effect that his land was acquired by the SECL, Gevra Project and the compensation was paid. The petitioner got employment in the SECL according to the scheme floated by the SECL to provide a job in the SECL to one of the members of land oustees. The allegation against the petitioner is that he secured a job in the SECL by submitting a false nomination whereas; he was not related to the land oustee, namely Dubraj Singh S/o Pathar Singh. The order of appointment was issued on 24.07.1999. The police investigated the case and the petitioner was arrested on 27.11.1999 whereas, the final report was filed -4- on 07.05.2007 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. An application for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was moved and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court on 27.11.2017.
(iii) CRMP No. 624 of 2018: A report was lodged by one Ramhan Singh against the petitioner on 25.11.1999 to the effect that his land was acquired by the SECL, Gevra Project and the compensation was paid. The petitioner got employment in the SECL according to the scheme floated by the SECL to provide a job in the SECL to one of the members of the land oustees. The allegation against the petitioner is that he secured a job in the SECL by submitting a false nomination whereas; he was not related to the land oustee, namely Ramhan Singh. The order of appointment was issued on 27.10.1997. The police investigated the case and the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.1999 whereas, the final report was filed on 07.05.2007 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and five witnesses have already been examined. An application under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C was moved to array Budheshar Singh, Jitendra Pandey, Sarpanch Dileshwar Singh, Gram Patel Phool Singh, Tehsildar S.S. Hanif, Patwari Dilip Kaiwart, Revenue Officer of the SECL - Atibal Diwan, Deputy Chief Personal Manager - A.K. Patnaik and the members of Recruitment Committee, but the same was rejected and against that order, Criminal Revision No. 05 of 2018 was preferred, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2018.
(iv) CRMP No. 632 of 2018: A report was lodged by one -5- Hemant Singh against the petitioner on 02.12.1999 to the effect that his land was acquired by the SECL, Gevra Project and the compensation was paid. The petitioner got employment in the SECL according to a scheme floated by the SECL to provide a job in SECL to one of the members of land oustees. The allegation against the petitioner is that he secured a job in the SECL by submitting a false nomination whereas; he was not related to the land oustee, namely Hemant Singh. The order of appointment was issued on 25.05.1999. The police investigated the case and the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.1999 whereas the final report was filed on 08.05.2007 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. The prosecution has examined one witness, namely K.R. Jaiswal the then Revenue Officer, SECL and learned trial Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 rejected the application moved by the petitioner and the complainant under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
(v) CRMP No. 646 of 2018: A report was lodged by one Ramdin against the petitioner on 29.11.1999 to the effect that his land was acquired by the SECL, Gevra Project and the compensation was paid. The petitioner got employment in the SECL according to a scheme floated by the SECL to provide a job in the SECL to one of the members of land oustees. The allegation against the petitioner is that he secured a job in the SECL by submitting a false nomination whereas; he was not related to the land oustee, namely Ramdin. The order of appointment was issued on 18.12.1995. The police investigated the case and the petitioner was arrested on 29.06.2000 whereas, the final report was filed on 08.05.2007 for the commission of -6- offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. On 14.04.2009, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and five witnesses including the complainant have already been examined. On 15.02.2018, an application for compromise moved by the petitioner and the complainant was rejected by the learned trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that according to the prosecution case, the lands of the complainants were acquired by the SECL and they were paid compensation according to the policy of the SECL and one of the members of the land oustees was provided a job in the SECL. It is further argued that proper nomination forms were filled by the land oustees in favour of the petitioners; the documents were properly scrutinized by the recruitment committee and the officers of the SECL and thereafter, the petitioners were offered jobs in the SECL, therefore, no offence is made out against them. It is further argued that the FIRs were registered in the years 1999 and 2000; charge sheets were filed in the year 2007 and till the filing of these petitions, criminal cases were pending against the petitioners. They would further submit that the lands acquired by the SECL were recorded in the names of the complainants and the petitioners were duly nominated, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not made out at all against the petitioners. It is also argued that the Revenue Officers as well as the officials of the SECL have not been impleaded as accused in the charge sheet despite the fact that they scrutinized the land records and issued the appointment orders. They would submit that a speedy trial is the right of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -7- whereas, the petitioners have been prosecuted since 1999, therefore, the FIRs and Criminal Cases No.1230 of 2016, 1236 of 2016, 1237 of 2016, 348 of 2016 and 312 of 2015 pending against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. They would further argue that the applications were moved for compromise according to the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. however aforesaid applications were rejected by the learned trial Court. The petitioners have placed copies of the order sheets of their respective cases to demonstrate that there was no substantial progress of the trial on account of the absence of the prosecution witnesses; therefore, the criminal cases are liable to be quashed. During the course of arguments, it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the accused persons against whom similar allegations were made, have been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora in Criminal Cases No. 1773 of 2016 and 794 of 2016. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Varala Bharath Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Telangana and Another, reported in 2018 Cr.L.J. 431, State of U.P. vs. Parashottam, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 741, Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 3944, Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2022, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in 2012 Cri.L.J. 4934, Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2012 Cri.L.J. 211, Jairajsinh Digvijaysinh Ranan vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4092, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of -8- Gujarat and Another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Shiji alias Pappu and Others vs. Radhika and Anr., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 445, Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2065, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Ors., reported in 2017 Cri. L.J. 2269 and Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1418 and Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and Anr., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and the judgments of this Court in the case of Bhojram and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., reported in 2020(1) CGLJ SN2 (CG) and Shivendra Pratap Singh @ Kuchchu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, CRMP No. 1924 of 2022.
4. Now dealing with the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners:-
i. With regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) in paragraph 103 held as under:
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
ii. In the matter of Varala Bharath Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the report held that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice where allegations made in First Information Report/Complaint or the outcome of -9- investigation as found in the Charge Sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.
iii. In the matter of Parashottam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal prosecution against the accused persons on the ground that the case was registered more than 30 years back and it took 17 years to frame the charges. iv. In the matter of Pankaj Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to speedy trial given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends to all criminal prosecutions and the criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground of delay in trial.
v. In the matter of Hasmukhlal D. Vora (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
vi. In the matter of Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences can be quashed on account of settlement. vii. In the matter of Shiv Charan (supra), the High Court of Rajasthan quashed the criminal proceedings relating to the offence of cheating and forgery on the ground that the offence was committed in the year 1996 whereas cognizance was taken in the year 2002 and there was inordinate delay of 12 years -10- which vitiated the prosecution.
viii. In the matter of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Ranan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR in non-compoundable offence on the basis of settlement between the complainant and the accused where a dispute with regard to right, title and interest in the plot was settled between them. ix. In the matter of Prabatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles in para 15 for quashing of an FIR on the ground of settlement between the parties which reads as under:
"15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim -11- have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
x. In the matter of Shiji alias Pappu and Others (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the parties to enter into a compromise for the non-compoundable offence in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where there was a dispute of a civil nature between the parties.
xi. In the matter of Bhojram (supra), this Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise holding that the possibility of conviction in the case is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice.
xii. In the matter of Nikhil Merchant (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that refusal to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that offences are non-compoundable, was improper and technicalities should not stand in the way of quashing such -12- criminal proceedings.
xiii. In the matter of Narinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guiding principles for the High Courts in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties while exercising its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. xiv. In the matter of Sadhu Ram Singla (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
xv. In the matter of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. holding therein when there was an unexplained delay in investigation and the prosecution was sleeping over the matter for almost seventeen years where the delay is not attributable to the accused persons, the constitutional guarantee of speedy investigation and trial was violated. The allegations against the accused though quite serious, deserve to be quashed in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
xvi. In the matter of Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint whether they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care -13- and circumspection try to read between the lines. It is also held that 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 the High Court should exercise inherent power to quash the proceedings.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners have cheated the land oustees as well as the employer i.e. South Eastern Coalfields Limited. He would further contend that the petitioners forged the nomination papers and procured jobs in the SECL and they have caused loss to the public exchequer by procuring jobs based on forged documents. He would next contend that there is sufficient material to establish that the petitioners have relation or blood relation with the land oustees and that according to the scheme only family members of the land oustees were entitled to get a job in lieu of the acquisition of land. He would also submit that in all the cases FIRs were registered in the year 1999, final reports were filed in the year 2007 and the charges were framed in the year 2009. It is further submitted that some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined however since these petitions were filed in the year 2018 and interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners, therefore, the criminal proceedings could not be proceeded further. He would also argue that the petitioners could not submit a single document to demonstrate that they were entitled to get jobs in the SECL and they were related to the land oustees or they were entitled to such a scheme. It is next argued that the petitioners have approached this Court after too much delay and they cannot -14- blame the prosecution for the delay in conclusion of the criminal proceedings. It is next submitted that the final reports have already been filed and some of the witnesses have already been examined, therefore, according to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a mini-trial is not permissible to examine the truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses or the charges framed against the petitioners, therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty reported in (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222), in which it is held in paragraph 6 as under:-
"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has entered into the merits of the allegations and has conducted the mini trial by weighing the evidence in detail which, as such, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision this Court had carved out the exceptions to the general rule that normally in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal proceedings/FIR should not be quashed. Exceptions to the above general rule are carved out in para 102 in Bhajan Lal (supra) which reads as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.-15-
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."
6.1 Looking to the allegations in the present case against the respondents - accused and considering the fact that charge- sheet has been filed by the Vigilance Cell after a thorough investigation, it cannot be said that the case falls within any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in para 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It cannot be said that the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents - accused are an abuse of process of any court. On the contrary, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throw away price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer.
6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the minitrial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court."
-16-
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the charge-sheet and the documents available on record with utmost circumspection.
6. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the petitioners are not related to the land oustees; the complaints were made against the petitioners and thereafter, investigation was conducted by the police wherein it was found that the petitioner in CRMP No. 646 of 2018, namely Shatruhan Lal Yadav has shown himself as son of Shyam Bai, wife of Jhingut Ram, caste Gond whereas, the caste of the petitioner is Yadav. A caste certificate has been enclosed where the caste of the petitioner is shown as Yadav which comes under other backward classes whereas; the caste of land oustee is Gond which comes under the Scheduled Tribe. From the above documents, it appears that the petitioner has forged documents to procure employment in the SECL.
7. The petitioner, namely Vivek Singh Chandel in CRMP No. 382 of 2018 was appointed vide order dated 04.01.1999. The name of his father is Shiv Kumar Singh Chandel whereas land oustees are Injore Singh, Prahlad Singh, Indrani Bai and Kaushilya Bai. In the nomination form, the petitioner is shown as the son of the land oustee. The petitioner Vivek Singh is the son of one of the land oustees, namely Kaushilya Bai wife of Shiv Kumar. In this regard, an affidavit has also been given but according to the charge sheet, by manipulation and fabrication Kaushilya Bai wife of Shiv Kumar has been shown as the daughter of Roop Singh. -17-
8. The petitioner, namely Anand Sahu in CRMP No. 394 of 2018 was appointed on 24.07.1999. The name of his father has been shown as Rambilas Sahu and he belongs to Sahu Caste whereas, the land oustees are Saroj Bai and Shanti Bai. The petitioner has not filed any document to demonstrate that Smt. Saroj Bai is the wife of Rambilas Sahu.
9. The petitioner, namely Satya Prakash in CRMP No. 624 of 2018 was appointed on 27.10.1994. The name of his father is Ramhan Singh. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fabricated the documents to show himself as the son of Ramhan Singh. From a perusal of the domicile certificate, it appears that after Ramhan Singh, the word @ Ramlal Singh has been added subsequently and there is manipulation. In the appointment order, the name of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as Ramlal Singh whereas the land oustee is Ramhan Singh.
10. The petitioner, namely Pradeep Kumar Gupta in CRMP No. 632 of 2018 was appointed on 04.01.1999. The name of his father is Balaji Gupta. The name of the land oustee is Garun Singh and he has been shown as the son of the land oustee but there is no document to establish this fact. Even in the affidavit this fact has not been disclosed.
11. The petitioner, namely Shatruhan Lal Yadav in CRMP No. 646 of 2018 belongs to the Yadav caste whereas the land oustees belong to the Scheduled Tribe, particularly the Gond caste and in such premises; an appointment order was issued in favour of Shatruhan Lal Yadav. They belong to the Gond caste and vide -18- Ex.P/7 an affidavit executed by the land oustees, the petitioner was authorized to get the appointment.
12. Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC are relevant for the disposal of the present petitions and the same are reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
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 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."
13. In most of the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where there is a considerable delay in the conclusion of the trial and such delay is not attributable to the accused persons, the criminal proceedings may be quashed as Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees speedy investigation and trial but at the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hasmukhlal D. Vora (supra) has held that inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing a criminal complaint when in most of the cases, witnesses have already been examined.
14. Some of the judgments have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner concerning compromise between the accused and the complainant as applications under Section 320 -19- of Cr.P.C. were moved before the learned trial Court and the same were rejected by the learned Courts below.
15. In the matter of Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the power of the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in the matter under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. has also held that "No doubt, crimes are acts which have a harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation". It is further held that "in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all".
16. In the present case, the petitioners have not only cheated the land oustees but have also cheated the State and have caused loss to the public exchequer. The petitioners have manipulated the documents to procure jobs in the SECL. They have depicted a false relationship with the land oustees therefore in the considered opinion of this Court the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the applications moved by the petitioners to record compromise.
17. In the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) which has been relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, in clause 15(vi) the -20- Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of heinous and serious offences which are not private in nature but have any serious impact upon the society, the compromise cannot be recorded. Further, in clause 15(ix), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to financial or economic fraud or a misdemeanor.
18. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may quash criminal proceedings/charge-sheet/FIR to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 in paragraph 23(xvi) held as under:
"23. (xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim -21- order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order."
19. In all criminal cases registered against the petitioners, charges have been framed. In some of the cases, witnesses have been examined and there is sufficient material against the petitioners, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no ground for interference in these petitions and consequently, all these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the pending trials against the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi