Avinash Modgil and others vs State of Punjab

N.K. Kapoor, J.

This petition is for quashing of FIR No. 208 dated 29.10.1989 on the ground that the petitioners have been falsely implicated; that prima facie allegations made in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioners; that the present proceedings are a mala fide act with ulterior motive to involve the petitioners.

Pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Court, reply had been filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Raghbir Singh Chahal, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sub Division) Ferozepur, controverting the various material averments made in the petition.

Before examining the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to briefly note the version as given in the first information report. Under a scheme for financial assistance to the Scheduled Caste families for promotion of Fish Culture in the State, one Sh. Mandha applied for a loan of Rs. 6500. This loan amount was to be disbursed to Sh. Mandha in four instalments. Before such instalments could be disbursed, it was to be verified by the officials of the Fisheries Department whether the applicant had taken necessary steps for excavating the pond for fish culture. As per FIR lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, three instalments of Rs. 1625/ each were given to Sh. Mandha on the recommendation of Sh. Avinash Modgil, Fisheries Officer, Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, District Fisheries Officer, and Surinder Mohan Dogra, District Fisheries Officer, Ferozepur. According to the FIR, these officers of the Fisheries Department made false and wrong report for the monetary gain about the excavation work done by Sh. Mandha. In fact, Mandha had not excavated any pond for fish culture. It was thus prayed that Mandha is liable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sarv. Avinash Modgil, Surinder Mohan Dogra and Tejinder Pal Singh are liable under Sections 420, 406, 109 read with Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea of the petitioners is that admittedly the amount in respect of three instalments had been disbursed to Mandha against valid receipts. Per se there is nothing to suggest that the petitioners had any role in the release of the instalments or that they had taken any bribe in clearing the necessary paper. It is essentially a Civil liability of Mandha to pay back the loan advanced by the government. According to the counsel, petitioner No. 1 was transferred to Zira and he, in fact, had relinquished the charge on 27.3.1985. In this way, he cannot be held to have played any role in sanctioning of second as well as third instalment. In fact, it is only during the fourth and the final instalment that an enquiry was ordered to find out whether Mandha had, in fact, dug up the pond upto 75% as stated by him in his application. It is then that it came to light that Mandha had not completed his work upto 75%, that the present proceedings have been launched against the petitioners as well as Mandha.

To test the veracity of various averments made in the petition as well as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant, elaborate inquiry is, in fact, required. All the same, as per allegations made in the FIR, it is difficult to conclude that no case is made out against the petitioners. Maybe, the court while examining the witnesses and other material which is yet to be placed on record, came to a finding that one or the other petitioner is not guilty of the accusation made against him or them. Thus, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in examining each one of the contentions raised or reply given in this regard by the learned Asstt. Advocate General. Such a course is otherwise likely to prejudice the defence which the petitioners may wish to set up.

I also do not find much merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. Basis of the first information report is the inspection/enquiry conducted by the Deputy DirectorcumChief Vigilance Officer, Fisheries, which brought to light that Mandha was able to take three instalments of Rs. 1625/ each by colluding with the present petitioners. According to the FIR, but for the recommendation of the present petitioners certifying that Mandha had, in fact, dug up the pond, the amount of instalments could not be disbursed to him. This report was made in the year 1986 and the department after duly considering the matter has lodged this FIR dated 20.10.1989. Thus, it is not a case of undue delay.

The ambit of inherent powers of this Court was reconsidered in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604. It has been the consistent view of the Court that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is to be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Despite having observed that there is no inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae, yet it chose to summarise under the following heads :

"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

The present case when tested in the light of guidelines given by the apex Court, does not fall within any of the points noted above. Thus, I find no merit in the present petition and consequently dismiss the same.