Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Bindra vs State Of H.P. & Others on 8 March, 2018
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Cr.MMO No.212 of 2016.
Decided on: 08.03.2018.
Rajinder Bindra ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others .......Respondents.
Coram r
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. S.C.Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr.
Narinder Guleria, Addl. AG for
respondents No. 1, 2 & 17.
Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for
respondent No. 11.
Mr. A.K. Vashishta, Advocate, for
respondents No. 7 to 10 and 13 to 16.
None for respondents No. 3 to 6 & 12.
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).
Complainant in FIR No. 11 of 2010 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in PS State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, District Kangra is the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP...2...
petitioner. He is aggrieved by the judgment Annexure P-4, .
passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in untrace report registered as Cr. Misc. A. No. 70/2010, whereby learned trial Judge has dismissed the objections to the report filed by the petitioner and accepted the untrace report.
2. The record reveals that the petitioner was working on daily wage basis in the department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh. A case was registered against him on 26.8.2010 vide FIR No. 9 of 2010 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with the allegations that he forged the medical certificates and submitted to the department to fulfill the mandatory requirement of minimum 240 days in a calendar year for seeking regularization of his services. He has filed the complaint in the Court below Annexure P-1 against his superior-
respondents No. 3 to 6 and co-workers respondents No. 7 to 16 with the allegation that respondents No. 7 to 16 herein have also submitted forged and fictitious medical ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...3...
certificates to fulfill the requirement of 240 days in order to .
seek regularization and their superior respondents No. 3 to 6 have dishonestly taken and considered the same as genuine to extend undue benefit to them while regularizing their services. On this complaint, FIR No. 11 of 2010 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act came to be registered against respondents No. 3 to 16.
3. In the FIR registered against the petitioner, the police has filed the untraced report which was accepted vide order dated 2.7.2013. In the FIR registered against the private respondents, the investigation has been conducted and on its completion untraced report filed. Notice was issued to the petitioner, who on entering had preferred the objections to the untraced report. Learned trial Judge has considered the objections so preferred by him and also gone through the report. It is thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.
4. The grouse of the petitioner, as brought to this Court in the present petition, is that the case registered ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...4...
against the respondents at his instance has not been .
investigated thoroughly. The documentary proof, he produced during the course of investigation, though clearly make out a case against the accused-respondents, however, the same has been misconstrued and misread.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General and the counsel representing the private respondents have vehemently argued that the petitioner has instituted many cases not only against his co-labourers but his superiors also falsely. The writ petitions he filed in this court were dismissed being devoid of any merits and even with costs also. The case against the private respondents is stated to be registered by him as a counterblast of the case registered vide FIR No. 9 of 2010 against him.
5. On analyzing the record of this case and also rival submissions, the act and conduct of the petitioner disclosed therefrom amply demonstrate that he has went upon to harass and humiliate his poor fellow labourers and also his superiors. Therefore, the possibility of the case registered against them at his instance is a counterblast to ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...5...
the case registered against him cannot be ruled out. Mr. .
Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the certificates Annexure P-5(colly.). These are certificates issued by private clinic i.e. "Sharma Clinic". Learned counsel has failed to point out as to how these certificates are forged or fictitious. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the certificate Annexure P-7. True it is that this certificate pertains to the ailment of Vijay Kumar during the period 1.4.1988 to 30.4.1988. The man days chart Annexure P-8, however, reveals that this period has not been counted while calculating the working days of aforesaid Vijay Kumar during the year 1988.
6. Now, if coming to the instance of Smt. Punia Kumari, there is nothing wrong with her man days chart Annexure P-10 because during the year 1992, after deducting maternity leave to which as per Annexure P-9, she was entitled, the remaining working days i.e. 155 have been taken into consideration. Much has been said about the certificate Annexure P-12 in the case of Vikram Singh as ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...6...
according to Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel this certificate of .
sickness during the period from 12.3.1993 to 18.8.1993 could have not been issued on 12.3.1993 itself. True it is that no such certificate could have been issued, however, the fitness certificate in the bottom of this document reveals that the same was issued on 19.8.1993. No doubt, in the certificate of sickness in the top, the date under the signature of the doctor has been mentioned as 12.3.1993 perhaps either by way of oversight or inadvertently because said Sh. Vikram Singh was examined in the hospital on 12.3.1993. Therefore, such error in this document is also not very serious in nature. Otherwise also, the respondents, daily rated workers could have obtained medical fitness certificates and got examined themselves from registered Medical Practitioners or in private clinic as is rightly indicated by learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment. Otherwise also, the opinion of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh was sought on the medical records furnished by the private respondents. Therefore, it ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...7...
cannot be said that the case has not been investigated .
properly by the investigating agency.
7. Interestingly enough, even in the case registered vide FIR No. 9 of 2010, against the petitioner, the investigating agency had filed untrace report which was accepted long back on 2.7.2013.
8. The record further reveals that the petitioner had instituted several cases including contempt proceedings against his department and the superiors and the same stood dismissed one by one being devoid of any merits even with costs also. The present, as such, in the considered opinion of this Court is a case where the petitioner is pursuing the present proceedings just to humiliate and harass his superiors and also his fellow labourers, may be, on account of the above referred FIR was registered against him at the instance of the department. The evidence collected by the investigating agency and documents produced by the petitioner during the course of investigation discussed hereinabove even if taken as it is does not connect the respondents with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP ...8...
commission of the alleged offence nor any findings of .
conviction can be recorded against them on the basis thereof. Rather, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer with any illegality or irregularity nor calls for any interference by this Court. The petition, as such, is dismissed alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as costs.
March 08, 2018 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
(karan-) ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 22:54:14 :::HCHP