Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bain Singh Tongar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2013
1
M.Cr.C.No.2747/2012
Bain Singh Tongar State of M.P.
5.2.2013
Shri S.C.Datt, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Deepak
Awasthy, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Dubey, Counsel for respondent.
Shri S.Chaturvedi, Counsel for intervener.
Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
"(1) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this petition and the FIR in Case No.19/03 (Annexure P/1) registered against the petitioner, at Police Station, Economic Offence Wing, Bhopal (M.P.), may kindly be quashed with a further direction to the respondent not to proceed further in the same subject matter against the petitioner.
(2) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
Case of the petitioner is that on merits, no case is made out against the petitioner for investigation, as the petitioner was possessing qualifications at the time of appointment. There was no manipulation by the petitioner in the service book and in fact entire investigation deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance to the Circular issued by the State Government which provides that the cases in which forged documents like caste certificate, birth certificate and educational certificate etc. were used to procure appointment, promotion and extension in public service, could not be investigated by the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau (Annexure P/9).
In this case on the basis of FIR dated 29.9.2003 before the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d)(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner as Crime No.19/2003. In the case after investigation, a final report was filed by a team of 2 M.Cr.C.No.2747/2012 Bain Singh Tongar State of M.P. 5.2.2013 investigating officers before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore. The Special Judge, Indore on 22.9.2008 (Annexure P/24 at page 137 to 139 of the paper book) had refused to accept the FR and directed the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau to investigate the matter further. It appears that FR filed in the matter was not accepted by the Special Judge and this order dated 22.9.2008 was not assailed by the petitioner before any forum which fact has been accepted by the petitioner before this Court. It appears that subsequent order dated 16.9.2011 by which the Special Judge issued certain directions to the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau for filing a charge-sheet at an early date after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the State Government, was challenged in M.Cr.C.No.8593/2011 before the High Court, Bench Indore and a Division Bench of Indore Bench on 12.12.2011 allowed the said petition in part by an order which reads thus:-
"6. In view of the settled legal position, we find that the impugned direction to obtain sanction and submit the charge sheet is uncalled for especially when the investigation has been allowed to continue by the lower Court. It is the statutory duty of the investigating agency to fully investigate the matter and then submit a report to the concerned Judge. It is only thereafter the Court will proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the direction of the Court below relating to obtaining sanction and then to file a charge sheet is unsustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. However, we make it clear that the direction relating to investigation will continue. We also make it clear that this order shall not come in the way of the State or investigating agency to grant or apply for the sanction at appropriate stage, as and when the occasion so arises."
3 M.Cr.C.No.2747/2012 Bain Singh Tongar State of M.P.
5.2.2013
Thereafter this petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. Aforesaid facts specifically reveal that the order of the Special Judge dated 22.9.2008 by which FR was not accepted was not challenged by the petitioner before any forum, meaning thereby that petitioner was satisfied with the order of the Special Judge directing for further investigation in the matter. Now when the matter is under investigation, this petition has been filed for quashment of the investigation and in the opinion of this Court at this juncture, the investigation cannot be interfered.
In aforesaid circumstances, at this juncture, we decline to entertain this petition. Petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the subsequent investigation in the matter, in compliance of the order dated 22.9.2008, including jurisdiction of the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau for investigation in the matter, shall be free to raise these grounds before an appropriate forum, in case such exigency arises to the petitioner.
At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner submits that certain directions issued by the Indore Bench in the matter have not been complied with by the investigating agency. To this we find that this Court need not examine aforesaid grievance and if the directions issued by the Indore Bench have not been complied with, petitioner is always free to raise this grievance before the Indore Bench.
With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) C. Judge Judge