Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Chandra Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 June, 2012
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 512 of 2012
with
Stay Application No. 5797 of 2012
Dinesh Chandra Sharma
S/o Late Mohan Chandra Sharma
Assistant Teacher, Government High School
Kalnoo Deholi, District Almora.
............... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Uttarakhand, through
Secretary Home Dehradun.
2. Senior Superintendent of Police
District Almora.
3. Station House Officer
Patti Patwari Area Pakhura
Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora.
4. Shri P.N.Singh
Head Master Government High School
Kalnoo Deholi, District Almora.
..............Respondents
Shri Vinod Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Shri S.S.Adhikari, Brief Holder, present for the State.
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
(2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 13.12.2011, registered as Crime No.01 of 2011, 2 relating to offences punishable under section 406 and 409 of I.P.C., Police Station Patti Patwari Area Pakhura, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the First Information Report allegations are against the Contractor, who raised the construction, the Junior Engineer supervised the the construction and the then Head Master with whose consent the money was released for construction activity. As per the First Information Report it was found that quality of construction was poor.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is simply an Assistant Teacher in the Government High School who was officiating as Head Master . He was not the technical expert to assess the quality of work. It is further pleaded that if at all the Contractor and the Junior Engineer, are responsible for the poor quality of work. Apart from this, it is pointed that during the period of the petitioner only one lac amount was released for the foundation of construction work, in which there is no complaint of poor quality of work. The poor quality of work was found at the stage of lintel which has nothing to do with the petitioner as he was not Head Master at that stage. It is argued 3 that it is abuse of process of law to implicate the petitioner in the case. It is further submitted that the Contractor and the Junior Engineer have already been arrested and released on bail.
(5) Admit the petition.
(6) Learned counsel for the State prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.
(7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, as an interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner Dinesh Chandra Sharma shall not be arrested in connection with aforesaid Crime/F.I.R. 01 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 406 and 409 of I.P.C., Police Station Patti Patwari Area Pakhura, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora, during investigation provided he cooperates with the investigating agency. (Stay Application No. 5797 of 2012, stands disposed of).
(8) List after six weeks.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.14.06.2012 NP