Kishan Singh vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 354 dated 7.8.1993 recorded with respect to offences punishable under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station, Narnaul and the subsequent proceedings thereto.

The relevant facts are that the First Information Report, referred to above, has been recorded mentioning that the petitioner was earlier posted at Narnaul. The Haryana Govt. started various Schemes under the ''Jawahar Rozgar Yojna'' in the financial year 19921993 and ''Million Wells Scheme'' was one of the said scheme. Under the said scheme, wells were being sunk in the Panchayat lands/lands owned by private individuals. Funds were being provided by various Govt. Agencies. The petitioner was the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Narnaul. He supervised the work of sinking of the wells.

It is alleged, as against the petitioner, that the work at the site has not been executed as per the approved estimates. No rates for the items of work have been got approved by the competent authority. The costs of work executed had been worked out as per C.S.R. rates. Provision of digging of wells has been made at Rs. 120/ per foot, which is the prevailing rate in the area. The payment of blasting has been made. The site inspection revealed that the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 409/420/467/468/471 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner claims that it is an abuse of process of the Court and he is being unnecessarily harassed. He was not having the supervisory control over the scheme. The work was supervised by a Governing Body headed by the Deputy CommissionercumChairman. It was in the leadership of said Governing Body that the work was executed. Subsequently, the Governing Body met on 14.5.1993. It approved the work and expenditure incurred under the ''Million Wells Scheme'' after careful consideration and thorough checking besides due discussion. As per the petitioner, once such an approval had been granted, there is no merit in the First Information Report.

In the reply filed, the assertions have been refuted. The State asserts that the petitioner has caused huge pecuniary loss to the State Exchequer and, therefore, has rightly been arrayed as an accused. He was having overall charge and supervision of the work. He was supposed to release the payment strictly in accordance with the Govt. instructions, but he did not do so. The petitioner allowed all limits to exceed from their norms.

At the time of argument, it was pointed out that the investigation is still pending and, therefore, at this stage, the First Information Report should not be quashed. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that once the Deputy Commissioner in the meeting had approved all the earlier affairs, the said First Information Report must be taken to be mala fide.

The attention of the Court was drawn towards the decision of the Supreme Court in a case reported as The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary and others, AIR 1993 Supreme Court, page 892. The Supreme Court observed that inherent powers have only to be utilised for ends of justice. The Courts must be careful while exercising inherent powers. It was observed further that inherent powers are not to be utilised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Premature decision should not be arrived at. It was further observed that "the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

In the present case in hand, as mentioned above, the investigation is still being effected. It is too early and premature to arrive at a correct conclusion. The investigation, as such, should not be stifled. Accordingly, it will not be in the fitness of things to interfere and quash the First Information Report merely because the Governing Body had held a meeting on 14.5.1993 to approve the expenditure incurred by the Gram Panchayat. The petition, at this stage, is premature and consequently without merit.

For these reasons, at this stage, the petition must fail and is dismissed.