Narinder Nath Ahuja vs State of Haryana

A. P. Chowdhri, J. (Oral)

Fact necessary for the disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as under :

Superintending Engineer (Operation) Circle, Haryana State Electricity Board, Karnal, wrote to the S.H.O. Police Station Nissang, District Karnal, on 26.8.1989 that inter alia Narinder Nath Ahuja petitioner had produced a bogus certificate on 8.1.1979 before S.D.C. (Operation), SubDivision Nissang, to the effect that he belonged to a backward class. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner had been granted promotion. Subsequently, however, it was discovered that the certificate was a bogus one. The petitioner had thereby obtained pecuniary advantages on the basis of a bogus certificate. On the basis of the said report, F.I.R. No. 347 was entered on 28.8.1989 at Police Station Nissang under Sections 468, 471, 420 IPC. After investigation, the police presented a challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. On the basis of the material collected in investigation, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed a charge for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and the case was posted for trial. It was at that stage, that the petitioner applied under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceeding based thereon.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the registration of the FIR one Ravi Dutt, an employee of H. S. E. B., had filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 172 of 2.8.1983 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Rohtak, against the Haryana State Electricity Board and private respondents including the petitioner. The case of the plaintiff was that the certificate of backward class relied upon by Narinder Nath Ahuja and two other defendants was bogus and they did not, in fact, belong to the backward class and their promotion was thus bad and had been obtained by practising fraud.'' The suit was bitterly contested by Haryana State Electricity Board as well as the defendants including the petitioner. Issue No. 1 framed in the suit was in the following terms :

"Whether backward certificates obtained by defendants No. 2 to 4 are. bogus and forged one as alleged ? OPP"

The Civil Court recorded a finding that the backward certificates produced by defendants No. 2 to 4 which were Exhibit P. 1 to P 3 were perfectly legal and there was nothing on record to show that the certificates were bogus or were obtained fraudulently by the said defendants. It was, therefore, held that the defendants had been rightly promoted against the reserved category. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that no appeal having been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, referred to above, the same had become final.

The learned counsel further pointed out that on 20th, February, 1987 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in departmental proceedings against him. The main charge was that the petitioner has submitted a false and bogus certificate of being a member of the backward class. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charges including the fact that the civil Court had decided the suit in his favour and had returned the finding that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner was genuine and valid and he had been rightly promoted against a reserved vacancy. The Department accepted his explanation and dropped the departmental proceedings.

It has, therefore, been contended that viewed in this background, the registration of the case in August, 1989 for the same very matter, was an abuse of the process of Court. The further contention of the learned counsel is that finding of the Civil Court finally determining the rights of the parties concerned, was binding on the criminal Court.

In spite of service, no one has appeared for the State. I find my self in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the reasons mentioned above, the FIR in question and the proceedings based on it are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

JUDGMENT accordingly.