Gajraj Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure 16 to the petition), passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Criminal Case No. 5825/2011, State v. Gajraj Singh. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant petitioner Gajraj Singh in order to ensure his attendance in the court. This Court has rendered hearing to learned Sr. Counsel and learned Brief Holder for the State. Also perused the papers available on record.

It appears that the applicant Gajraj Singh was the President of Consumer Drinking Water and Sanitation Committee (Upbhokta Pay Jal & Swachhata Samiti) of the village Mohanpur Mohammadpur, Block Narsan, District Haridwar. Monetary fund amounting to Rs. 11,72,460/- was allocated to the said Committee for utilizing the same in order to advance the purpose of that Committee for which it was meant. Probably, the Committee failed to discharge its duties. So, one local social activist, namely, Mr. Pradeep Paliwal, an Advocate based at Haridwar, in exercise of the rights under the Right to Information Act, was able to gather the information, after intervention of the State Information Commission, that the funds, so allocated to the Committee, were misappropriated without doing any actual work on the ground. Thereupon, Mr. Paliwal tried to set the law machinery into motion against the then President of the Committee i.e. the applicant Gajraj Singh, who was also the Pradhan (Headman) of the aforesaid village. The efforts of Mr. Paliwal could finally yield result when the FIR was lodged against the accused applicant Gajraj Singh u/s 409 IPC. The same was lodged by the concerned Assistant Development Officer on the initiation and direction of his superio rs. The investigation resulted into the submission of chargesheet against the accused applicant u/s 409 IPC.

It is pertinent to mention here that soon after lodging of the FIR, the applicant got his arrest stayed by this Court, but that order became redundant after filing of the chargesheet in the matter. Thereafter, the accused applicant Gajraj Singh filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 918/2011, u/s 482 CrPC, for quashing of the chargesheet, which was dismissed by this Court at the very threshold on 30.9.2011. While dismissing the said petition, this Court also observed that the accused applicant Gajraj Singh would surrender before the court below wherefrom he has been chargesheeted. Instead of making compliance of this order, it appears that the applicant Gajraj Singh moved another application before the SSP, Haridwar along with certain papers seeking invocation of his powers for further investigation into the matter. However, this endeavor of Gajraj Singh could not yield the desired result, and the police submitted an additional report in consonance of the previous chargesheet filed against him.

It further appears that the accused applicant Gajraj Singh, instead of surrendering even at this stage, agitated the matter before the court below itself and sought his discharge. When the same was rejected by the court below, the applicant Gajraj Singh has come up before this Court by way of filing the present petition u/s 482 CrPC.

It has been contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that the entire prosecution has been launched against the applicant on the initiation of Mr. Pradeep Paliwal, an Advocate, based at Haridwar, who has some personal grudge with the applicant and his other family members, and they are at loggerheads with each other. To demonstrate the said accusation, certain papers have been filed today on behalf of the applicant before this Court, a perusal of the same reveals that the applicant Gajraj Singh was a witness in a case (Original Suit No. 135/2003), which was contested by the brother of Mr. Pradeep Paliwal as defendant and that suit was instituted by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, an Advocate, practicing before this Court, who also happens to be the real brother of the accused applicant Gajraj Singh.

It has further been contended that the aforesaid money was not personally handed over to the present accused applicant. Rather, it was deposited in the account of the said Committee. So, in no way, it can be alleged that the said money have been misappropriated by Gajraj Singh.

This Court is not inclined to accept such baseless arguments advanced on behalf of the accused applicant. The dispute involves questions of fact, which cannot be considered by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC. My view is fortified by the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of C.B.I. v. K.M. Sharan, reported in 2008(2) CCSC 815.

Mr. Pradeep Paliwal, might be at the loggerheads with the accused applicant, but that cannot be a ground to quash the chargesheet or the order of cognizance. The fact remains that the accused applicant, being the Pradhan of village at the relevant time, was also the ex-officio Chairman of the Consumer Drinking Water & Sanitation Committee, and when Mr. Pradeep Paliwal revealed the misappropriation of the fund allocated to the said Committee by using the RTI Act, an FIR was lodged, which resulted in submission of the chargesheet after the detailed investigation into the matter, as has been discussed above. Even further investigation, conducted by the police on the additional papers made available to the SSP concerned by Mr. Gajraj Singh himself, could not yield any favourable result for him, rather it strengthened the case of prosecution. The argument that the fund was allotted to the Committee, and it was not handed over to the accused applicant, does not hold any water. A prima facie offence of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of Government fund in the capacity of President of the Committee is made out against the accused applicant

It is quite disgusting that the accused applicant Gajraj Singh tried his level best and fired all canons to delay the trial by filing petitions, objections and additional papers at different stages on one pretext or other and thus wasted the valuable time of the courts/authorities.

In view of the abovenarrated facts and circumstances of the case, the petition has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. The same is hereby dismissed. Inform the court concerned accordingly so that the trial against the accused applicant may proceed further expeditiously.