Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. In Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC 130, an FIR was registered against the appellant therein alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation of Rs.4,39,617/-. In departmental proceedings with identical charges, the appellant was exonerated on the ground that it was not clear as to who received the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon copies of bills were not available. In the criminal case, the police submitted the final report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate based upon the statement of the complainant directed re-investigation. Thereafter, investigation remained pending for 12-13 years. The appellant being aggrieved approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him, but the High Court declined to quash the FIR. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings. Relying upon the decision of P.S. Rajya (Supra), it was observed as under:

25. Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR......
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
28. .......Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and as the appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be quashed."

23. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order [J. Sekar v. SRS Mining, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 13804] passed by the High Court. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. ECR CEZO 19/2016 including Complaint bearing No. 2 of 2017 stands quashed."

35. The settled position from the above refereed judgments is to the effect that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same/identical set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. The reasoning for this conclusion/proposition in the above referred judgments is that the standard of proceedings in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt which is far higher than preponderance of probability, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings. When the same witnesses could not be able to prove/establish the same/identical charges in the disciplinary proceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in departmental proceedings.

36. The reliability and genuineness of the allegations against the applicant has already been tested during the disciplinary proceedings and the applicant has been exonerated after taking note of the statements of witnesses who would prove the same/identical charges in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that in the present matter interference of this Court is required and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0271 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020, detailed above, are liable to be set aside in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C..