Chanchal Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.B. Garg, J.

Chanchal Singh, an Inspector or the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging FIR No. 105 of 2591989 registered at Police Station City Batala for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

A copy of the FIR in question is Annexure P3 and briefly it contains the allegations that Chanchal Singh was posted as an Inspector under the District Manager, Punsup, Gurdaspur and this Corporation dealt with the procurement of wheat, other essential commodities such as cement, palm oil, sugar, Urd whole, etc. and misappropriation of 973 bags of cement, 178 tins of palm oil, 28 bags of sugar, 55 kgs of Urd whole etc. was noticed. There is a specific mention in the FIR that the value of the commodities was Rs. 2166759.22 and this misappropriation was committed the petitioner at Batala Centre of the aforesaid Corporation.

The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner here is that a suit for recovery of Rs. 2166759.22 plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum has been instituted by the complainant Corporation and it sis pending in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur and in the presence of the aforesaid civil suit the registration of the present case and prosecution of the petitioner should not be allowed to continue because it may be an abuse of the process of the Court.

On behalf of the respondent it has been pointed out that there are specific allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner. During the course of arguments it has transpired that by now even a charge has been framed against the petitioner by the trial Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Bant Singh v. The Dully cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., 1987(2) Recent CR 435 , where, in the presence of an award of the arbitrator, it was held that prosecution should not continue. Here, the facts are distinguishable inasmuch as there was embezzlement of valuable items of the stock. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Ajmer Singh and ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1989(2) CLR 235, where in the presence of agreement for specific performance of sale, the prosecution of the defaulter was not liked.

On the contrary, in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., 1990(1) Recent CR 94 , where shortage came to notice from the stock of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. which was valued at Rs. 1.79 lacs, the interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not liked. In the case now in hand, the embezzlement relates to the tune of Rs. 2166759.22. The conclusion is that in the circumstances of the case, where charge has been framed, the interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not called for and the present petition is dismissed.