AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
David Annoussamy, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 , Crl. P C., by one of the accused for calling for records in Crl No 3 of 1984 on the file(? sic) of the Respondent and to quash the same.
A complaint was received from the Government Hospital, Thiruvallur, regarding the misappropriation of money to the tune of more than one lakh of rupees. The report would show that the person who indulged in fraudulent activities and misappropriated the Government money is one Mohanachandra Dass, Junior Assistant, who is arrayed as accused No 1. She case was registered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Kanchipuram in Crl. No. 3 of 1984 against the said Mohanachandra Dass, the Petitioner herein and another person.
The case of the Petitioner is that the complaint received dots not disclose any illegal activities by the Petitioner that the recital would show that the misappropriation was by Mohanachandra Dass and that, therefore, no case should have been registered against him, on the basts of the report received. He further slates that though the case was registered as early as in 1984, investigation has not progressed and no final report has been so far filed. The offences complained of are u/s 409, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would argue that on account of the pendency of the F.I.R the career prospects of the Petitioner are affected and that he is denied of his normal promotions and other advantages of his career.
The learned public prosecutor would state that the final report has not yet been filed, but it will be soon filed.
The report received from the investigating officer discloses only fraudulent activities by Mohanachandra Dass, Junior Assistant. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it indicates only the period during which he was in charge of office, that is to say, from 1-9-1980 to 27-9-1980 and that the amount involved is Rs 4930. The report does not show that the Petitioner has committed any illegal activities. Therefore, prime facie his name should not appear in the F.I.R to(? sic) that extent, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right.
If in the course of the investigation, the investigating officer finds any cognisable-offence committed by any person, he may add him as accused in his final report. Therefore the fact of deleting the name of the Petitioner in the F.I.R at this stage would not preclude in any manner the investigating officer to include him in his final report provided he finds that (sic) any offence appears to have been committed by him, as a result of his investigation. With the above observations, this petition is allowed to the effect that the name of the Petitioner shall be deleted from the F.I.R.