Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 November, 2020
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 2 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16760 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Narayan Chaurasia Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran and Ujjawal Satsangi, Advocate, and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Narendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By the instant petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''Cr.P.C.'), applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.01/2020 (CNR No. UPME010022622020) i.e. State vs. Ram Narayan Chaurasia, pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Court No. 2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, arising from FIR No.1694/2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
The facts, briefly stated, is that applicant was posted District Commandant of Home Guards at Gautam Buddh Nagar, from August 2017 to September 2019. On a complaint filed by Shri Rajiv Kumar, Platoon Commander, Company Nagar-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar, a preliminary enquiry was set up to enquire into the allegations. The Superintendent of Police upon enquiry submitted a report on 10.10.2019. It transpired that forged and fabricated muster roll was prepared of regular and/or contractual Home Guards, assigned the duty of traffic management at various centres of the city. It was found in a random sample check period for the months May & June, 2019, that for 114 Home Guards, 1,327 days was shown towards duty; Rs.7,07,500/- i.e. 50% of the wages was found to have been disbursed against forged muster roll. The enquiry comprised of muster rolls of seven police stations. On the strength of the enquiry, F.I.R. was registered on 13.11.2019. After investigation, a charge sheet dated 16.2.2020 came to be filed wherein applicant has been made an accused. The charge sheet and the consequential cognizance order is under challenge.
It is urged on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated being District Commandant; applicant is not aware nor in direct control, in preparation of muster roll of Home Guards. Rather, being Head of the district, his administrative responsibility is to forward the muster roll prepared by the field authority to the Account Officer at Noida. It is, further, urged that the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not made out against the applicant; there is no evidence of any pecuniary gain caused to the applicant in the alleged conspiracy. It is urged that the salary was directly transferred to the bank account of the Home Guards; applicant is not beneficiary; applicant has been made an accused on the confessional statement of co-accused Montu Kumar, Shailendra Kumar, Satyaveer Yadav and Satish Chand. It is submitted that prosecution against the applicant is merely based on hearsay evidence and does not link the applicant with the commission of the offence nor there is evidence, except vague and false statement of the accused persons. It is, further, submitted that applicant has been made scapegoat for bringing reforms with regard to the disbursement of salary and management of duty of Home Guards; in fact, it is urged that applicant brought to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Noida, vide communication dated 8 November 2019, wherein, he had cautioned with regard to the procedure adopted for preparation of muster roll and its verification and payment of salary to the Home Guards; applicant further requested that an enquiry be set up with the engagement of Home Guards, preparation of muster roll and payment of salary of the previous years. It is further urged that after the letter was dispatched, the muster roll registers went missing from the department. In other words, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is a victim of the alleged scam.
In rebuttal, Shri Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that applicant is the Head and master mind in siphoning of government money on the strength of forged and fabricated muster roll of Home Guards prepared at his behest. It is reflected from the statements of co-accused and other Home Guards that forged muster rolls were prepared, thereafter, money transferred towards salary was withdrawn and disbursed as per the conspiracy/understanding reached between the accused persons. It is further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, it is for the court to examine as to whether there is prima facie evidence and strong suspicion linking the accused with commission of the offence; the defence of the accused cannot be gone into at this stage. In view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it is submitted that it is not a fit case for quashing of the charge sheet in the backdrop of categorical statements implicating the applicant as kingpin and master mind of the alleged conspiracy; statements are sufficient for framing the charge. 42 witnesses are listed in the charge sheet to support the charge. The informant has also been made an accused. It is further urged that investigation against the other persons is still pending and kept open.
Rival submissions fall for consideration.
I have perused the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is categorically stated that at behest of the applicant, forged and manufactured muster rolls were prepared, salary was disbursed in the account of fictitious persons, thereafter, 50% was withdrawn and handed over to the applicant and the rest shared with the accused persons. There is consistency in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; it is a case of white collar crime involving huge public money and syphoning money for wrongful gain by the applicant , the District Head, thereby, causing commensurate wrongful loss to the State. It is a deep rooted conspiracy hatched in such a manner to give an impression that the act/omission was lawful and legal, but, in the backdrop of the statements, it is evident that conspiracy was carefully executed after reaching an agreement/understanding between the accused persons. The State exchequer was deprived of huge money based on forged and manufactured documents. Prima facie, ingredients of the offence is made out based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer and links the applicant with the commission of the offence, there is sufficient material to charge the applicant. It is upon the prosecution to bring home the charge against the applicant during trial based on the evidence. The defence and explanation cannot be gone into at this stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
The petition being devoid of merit, accordingly, is rejected.
Order Date :- 24.11.2020 Mukesh Kr.