AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Heard Sri J. J. Munir, advocate for the applicant and Sri Patanjali Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Dr. Lalit Verma, a Member of Indian Administrative Service was posted in the year 1989 as Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur.
He has come to this Court u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the first information report, lodged against him at Police Station Cantt., district Gorakhpur. This report was lodged u/s 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 506, I.P.C. by opposite party No. 2 Onkar Nath Pandey, Inspector, U.P. Vigilance Department, Uttar Pradesh pursuant to an order dated 28.8.1997 of the State Government.
The basis of the first information report, was a complaint by opposite party No. 4, K. K. Kamani, who owned a firm under the name and style of M/s. Rajendra Tubes Ltd., Kanpur in which he alleged that in the year 1989, the applicant was a member of the Purchase Committee, formed for various purchase programmes for the development of the district. The committee was headed by the District Magistrate. The Committee had invited quotations from various firms for the supply of the pipe, the list of which was finalised by the purchase committee, in pursuance of which, the orders were placed to different firms for the supply of the pipes.
The complainant alleged that it was clandestinely agreed between him and opposite party No. 4 that the applicant will give supply of an order of 85000 Mtrs. of pipe on a profitable rate to opposite party No. 4 and in turn, he had given an amount of Rs. 3 lacs in 30 instalments, Rs. 10,000 a day for 30 days, between 16.9.1989 to 27.10.1989 to the applicant.
In his income tax assessment filed for the year 1990-91 before the Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Kanpur, the complainant had claimed this amount as an expenditure on basis of which a show cause notice (Annexure-A2) was sent for query to the applicant by the Income Tax Department. The applicant, in his reply (Annexure-A3) sent to the Income Tax Officer denied the receipt of these payments. The Income Tax Officer vide order dated 17.3.1993 passed by him rejected the claim of the Opposite Party No. 4 (complainant), holding it as erroneous, as there being, no iota of evidence in support of the alleged payment. An appeal filed against this order by opposite party No. 4, could not also fructify.
7 Besides it, opposite party No. 4 also sent a letter on his letter pad (Annexure-A1) of Kanpur Journalists Association, to the applicant, on 15.6.1990 mentioning payments of Rs. 3 lacs to the applicant for placing him the supply order, and requiring the applicant that supply order of atleast 65,000 Mtrs. of pipes be issued, or the aforenoted sum of Rs. 3 lacs be made good to him.
Since all they yielded no results, a complaint was made by the complainant (opposite party No. 4) on 4.8.1994 to the Government, narrating the above facts against the applicant and the opposite party-Government entrusted the enquiry to Commissioner, Kanpur, who after the enquiry, on 17.1.1996 recommended that a vigilance enquiry be made against the applicant. In consequence whereof, the Government ordered in the month of June, 1996 to the vigilance establishment to conduct an inquiry on the complaint of opposite party No. 4 and the vigilance establishment after conducting the preliminary enquiry, ultimately, on 28.8.1997 filed the first information report in question, against the applicant, registered as Case Crime No. 1777 of 1997.
These facts have been enumerated to provide a background for the controversy, though the mention thereof, was not wholly unnecessary, because the Government has now exonerated the applicant of all the allegations and the only complaint of the applicant is that a final report u/s 173(2), Cr. P.C. has not yet been filed and the final report, therefore, technically lingers on, which may provide a ground, for harassment of the applicant.
The Government vide order dated 29.4.1999 has closed the criminal case against the applicant u/s 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 506, I.P.C. The Government has passed another order dated 18.1.2000 in which it has been said that no departmental inquiry against the applicant is to be conducted.
It will thus, appear that the Government has fully exonerated the applicant for all the charges against him, including the charges contained in the aforementioned first information report. There is, as such, no reason why a final report has not been filed. The applicant harbours apprehension, that the continued existence of first information report, may be a source of harassment to him. Since the Government has passed an order exonerating the applicant on the criminal charge against him in it''s totality, the first information report has become refundant and needs to be erased. The first information report has been pending for almost 10 years, should, now be scrapped. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to obtain order from this Court for quashing of the first information report.
The counsel for the applicant wants this Court, to pass an order that the matter relating to disproportionate assets against the applicant shall stand closed. There is no need for separate specific order in this regard, because the F.I.R. which is being quashed relates to the disproportionate assets case and when the F.I.R. is quashed the accusations are automatically extinguished. Moreover, the first information report being quashed in entirety, the other reliefs claimed by the applicant (vide rejoinder-affidavit dated 26.3.2007) are redundant, futile and unnecessary.
Before the final order, it needs to be mentioned that the applicant has been unnecessarily subjected to agony and harassment because ultimately it was found by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that no case could be made out against the applicant, but, it took almost 13 to 17 years for the administration to come to this conclusion, and the poor officer was under duress and strain all this whole.
The application is allowed and the first information report in question (Crime No. 1777 of 1997 u/s 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 506, I.P.C., P.S. Cantt. district Gorakhpur) is quashed.