Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 May, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No.M-8932 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-8932 of 2013 (O & M)
Date of Decision: May 04, 2013.
Virender Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Ms. Garima, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.116 dated 23.02.2013, registered at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 7, 13 (1) (d) of PC, Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that SI Naresh Kumar, Flying Squad of Chief Minister, Haryana was investigating FIR No.39 dated 30.1.2013, registered at Police Station Tauru, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 474, 475, 467, 468, 471, 188, 120-B IPC, 3 (2) PPDP Act and 3/181 and 3/92 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the course of enquiry, it transpired that number of fake licences on the basis of fake and forged Crl. Misc. No.M-8932 of 2013 2 documents had been issued by RTA Office at Nuh. At that point of time, checking of record of concerned office i.e. office of RTA, Nuh was carried out and in pursuance to that, the present FIR has been registered. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner joined as Secretary, RTA, Nuh on 10.08.2010 and he had no role in renewal of the alleged driving licences issued from Mathura, on the basis of fake and fabricated documents. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has submitted various representations to senior officers including the Superintendent of Police and he is ready to join the investigation. A direction was issued by the concerned authority to join the investigation and in pursuance to the same, the petitioner has joined the investigation. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is not the custodian of the files, it is the concerned clerk only, who has the custody of the files. The learned counsel further contends that since the case is simply based on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
Learned State counsel after seeking instructions from DSP Manoj Kumar contends that the petitioner was issued a notice on 21.3.2013 to submit the concerned files wherein forged and fabricated licences have been renewed by his office; at least 18 files were demanded for the purpose of investigation, but the petitioner did not hand over the same, rather handed over some other files relating to the driving licences. The learned State counsel further contends that when serial numbers and the dates on the licences were compared with record, it was found that the alleged licences are shown in the names of different persons in the records. Keeping in view Crl. Misc. No.M-8932 of 2013 3 this fact, the learned State counsel states that custodial interrogation is necessary to verify who are the persons involved in this scam and the identity of the persons as well as conduits are also required to be verified. The learned State counsel further contends that after the joining of the petitioner as RTA, at Nuh, approximately 30,000 licences have been issued which are yet to be verified and the audit is being carried out by a specific team constituted by the department to verify and check the correctness of those licences. The learned State counsel further contends that the petitioner has stated that 15 files are missing, but he failed to specifically satisfy the investigating officer as to why the FIR has not been registered qua the missing files. Even, no departmental enquiry was held by the petitioner in this regard.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the police file.
It is very much clear that more than 30,000, licences have been issued/renewed by the RTA, Office, Nuh after joining of the petitioner. The licences issued by various other authorities were renewed after getting proper no objection certificates. Moreover, the signatures of the petitioner on the files clearly indicate that the petitioner was involved and he cannot escape liability by merely saying that as the Head of Department at the concerned office, he has been involved.
Furthermore, it is clear that there is a large scale scam of issuing/renewing licences on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. That is one of the reasons that large number of accidents are happening because unqualified persons are getting the licences and are using it. Crl. Misc. No.M-8932 of 2013 4 Otherwise also, the petitioner, being the head of the department, is required to ensure that only genuine licences are issued and renewed after obtaining no objection certificates from the various concerned authorities. Large number of licences i.e. approximately 30,000 have been issued during the tenure of the petitioner out of which at least 18 files bearing the signatures of the petitioner in which licences have been issued on the basis of forged and fabricated documents are not in accordance with law. As per the investigation, the audit is being carried out. There is a possibility that by interrogation of the petitioner, a large scam of fake and forged licences may come out. In order to identify the persons who are involved in this scam including the conduits and other files of the department, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Being head of the concerned office, it is the duty of the petitioner to keep a proper check on his subordinates. He cannot be absolved of his liability merely by saying that the custody of the files remains with the subordinate staff. It needs to be mentioned here that for issuing of licences, the subordinate staff only prepares the files and present those before the concerned officer, then he/petitioner being Head of the office is required to verify the fact and pass appropriate order. Keeping in view the fact that there is a large scam of issuing licences by forging and fabricating the documents and the role of the petitioner is crucial, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Dismissed.
May 04, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ] parveen kumar Judge