Piar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)

By way of the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short the “BNSS”), prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 5 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

Quintessential facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by both the parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4, Onkar Singh Chandel, who otherwise happens to be father-in-law of the sister of petitioner No. 2, Shilpa Kumari, who allegedly on the basis of forged/fake BPL certificate, procured job in the Health Department against the post of Nurse. Respondent No.4 alleged that since son of petitioner No. 1 has been working as Assistant Manager in Alkem Laboratories, Pharmaceutical Multinational Company and he also possesses car with RC No. HP 89-9097, petitioner No. 1 as well as his family could not be in the list of BPL. However, children of petitioner No. 1 on the basis of BPL certificate, which has been issued in violation of guidelines framed for issuance of BPL certificate, procured government job.

Precisely, respondent No.4 alleged that respondent No. 2, Shilpa Kumari, fraudulently secured appointment in the Health Department claiming herself from the BPL category. Police after having perused the record of Gram Panchayat Dahad, found that petitioner No. 1 was in the list of BPL/IRDP with effect from 03.04.2011 up to 30.11.2023. As per record of Director, HP Health Department, Shimla, petitioner No. 2, i.e.Shilpa Kumari, got selected vide notification dated 27.6.2023 in the government job as Staff Nurse on the basis of BPL/IRDP certificate issued on 10.4.2023. Investigating agency further found that son of petitioner No. 1 had got job in a multinational company namely Alkem Laboratories in year 2022. Initially, he worked in Alkem Laboratories up to August 2022 and thereafter, he worked at Unichem Laboratories, Baddi and his annual salary was about Rs.13,12,501/-.

Since as per guidelines, entire income of family is required to be taken into consideration while granting benefit of BPL/IRDP, petitioners could not have been included in the list of BPL/IRDP after the year 2018, whereas in the case at hand, family of the petitioner continued to avail such benefit up to 30.11.2023. Petitioner No. 2 got selected in the Health Department vide notification dated 27.6.2023 against the post of Nurse on the basis of BPL/IRDP certificate dated 10.4.2023.

It is also allegation of complainant that petitioner No.1 and his other family members gave false affidavit that their monthly income is less than Rs.2,500/- and as such, succeeded in getting the BPL certificate.

Though after completion of investigation, police has already presented challan in competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioners have approached this Court in instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that no case much less under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC is made out because at no point of time, cheating, if any, was committed by them in procuring government job, rather petitioner No. 2, on the strength of BPL certificate issued by the competent authority applied for the benefit of BPL certificate.

Mr. Sanjeev Suri, learned counsel of petitioner, submitted that admittedly, after the year 2018, petitioners were not eligible to be included in the list of BPL/IRDP certificate on account of the fact that, petitioner No. 3 (son of petitioner No.1), had got a private job from where he was earning more than Rs.13.00 lakhs per annum, but since no steps, if any, ever came to be taken by the Gram Panchayat concerned for exclusion of the petitioners from the list of BPL, no offence punishable under aforesaid provisions of law can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Mr. Suri, specifically referred to Annexure P-2 i.e. certificate dated 02.04.2025 issued by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dahad, Development Block Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, to state that though factum with regard to employment of the son of petitioner No. 1 with effect from the year 2018 was in the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat concerned, but yet Gram Panchayat proceeded to include the petitioners in the list of BPL on the ground that brother and sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1 had died in 2004-05, leaving behind two minor children, who were being taken care of by petitioner No. 1 and his family. He further submitted that complaint, on the basis of which FIR sought to be quashed, has been filed by respondent No.4 to wreak vengeance on account of matrimonial discord inter-se his son and sister of petitioner No. 2. To support the aforesaid contention, he invited attention of this Court to petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act by the son of respondent No.4, )Annexure P-3), perusal whereof clearly reveals that son of respondent No.4 has filed divorce petition against Smt. Rimpa Devi, i.e. sister-in-law of petitioner No. 2, on the ground of cruelty.

Pursuant to notice issued in the matter, respondent No. 1 to 3 and 4 have filed their respective replies, wherein facts as have been noted hereinabove have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of petitioner on the ground that once after the year 2018, family of petitioner No.1 was not eligible to be included in the list of BPL and such fact was very much in the knowledge of petitioner No. 1, there was no occasion for him to continue with the benefit as were being availed by him on account of his being in the list of BPL.

Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent-State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submitted that though after the year 2018, family of petitioner No. 1 was not eligible to be included in the list of BPL, but he, in connivance with Gram Panchayat officials, managed to procure the BPL certificate till November 2023. He submitted that there was no occasion, if any, for petitioner No. 2 to take benefit of BPL certificate in the year 2023, especially when her family had become ineligible in year 2018 on account of employment of petitioner No. 4. They submitted that petitioners not only committed offence of cheating, but they also attempted to take benefit of document which was fraudulently issued and as such, no illegality can be said to be committed by the police while lodging FIR sought to be quashed. They submitted that since police after having completed the investigation has found prima facie case against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of law and challan stands filed in the competent court of law, this Court may not exercise power under Section 528 to quash the FIR because in that situation, investigating agency would be pre-empted from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which has been adduced in abundance to prove the guilt of the petitioner accused.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter-submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS (earlier Section 482 Cr.PC).

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS) is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Departmetn of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC (relevant paras 16 and 17). Also see Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS).

Reliance in this regard is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, which reads as under:

Now in light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavour to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petitions, vis-a-vis factual matrix of the case.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner No. 2, who happens to be daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1, got job against the post of Nurse in the month of June 2023. It is also not in dispute that after year 2018, family of petitioner No. 1 had become ineligible to get the benefit of BPL for the reason that his son (petitioner No.3) had got employment in multinational company at Baddi and his income was more than Rs.13.00 lakh per annum. It is also not in dispute, rather stands admitted in the reply of respondent 1 to 3, that family of petitioner No. 1 was in the list of BPL/IRDP with effect from 3.4.2011 up to 30.11.2023. Petitioner No. 2, after having got job in the Health Department in the month of June 2023, herself gave an application to the Gram Panchayat for exclusion of her name from the category of BPL, whereafter with effect from 30.11.2023, family of the petitioner has been excluded from the category of BPL. Though taking note of the fact that in year 2018, son of petitioner No. 1 had got private job from where he was getting annual salary of more than Rs.13.00 lakh, this Court finds force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General as well as counsel representing the private respondent that name of the family of petitioner No. 1 should have been excluded from the category of BPL with effect from 2018, but fact remains that name of the family was not excluded, rather, up to 30-11-23, the family continued to avail the benefit of BPL. Though learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently argued that factum with regard to employment of petitioner was concealed by petitioner No. 1 from the Gram Panchayat concerned, as a result thereof, family of petitioner No.1, could not be excluded from the BPL list in year 2018, but having carefully perused certificate dated 2.4.2025 issued under signatures of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dahad, where it stands recorded that the family of the petitioner was recommended for inclusion in the list of BPL for the reason that his brother and sister-in-law had died leaving behind two minor children and after their death, they were being taken care of by family of petitioner No. 1.

This Court need not go into the question “whether for aforesaid reason, name of the family of petitioner No. 1 could be recommended for inclusion in BPL list or not?”, but certainly, having taken note of aforesaid communication, this Court has reason to presume and believe that Gram Panchayat, which permitted family of the petitioner to avail the benefit of BPL till year 2023 was very much in the know of the fact that son of petitioner No. 1 has already got private job in year 2018, as a result thereof, family of the petitioner is ineligible to be included in the list of BPL. Moreover, this is none of the case of the prosecution that BPL certificate, which ultimately came to be used by petitioner No. 2 for procuring job in the Health Department as Nurse, was forged or fraudulently procured, rather it is a fact that same was issued by Gram Panchayat Dahad, which never came forward to lodge any complaint against petitioner No.1 and his family that they fraudulently procured the certificate. It is a matter of fact that BPL certificate issued in favour of petitioners was cancelled in the month of November 2023, that too on the application made by petitioner No. 2 that on account of her having procured government job, her family is not entitled to avail the benefit of BPL certificate. Otherwise also, detailed procedure has been laid down in Guidelines of BPL Selection Scheme (SMJ-6/2002/I.R.D.-751-62 dated 29.1.2007), for inclusion and exclusion of the families under the BPL category. Ultimate decision, if any, with regard to inclusion or exclusion of particular family in the category of BPL is to be taken by the Gram Panchayat. Income/BPL certificates issued by competent authorities are reviewed on year-to-year basis and once it comes to the knowledge of the competent authority responsible for granting such benefits that on account of enhancement of income of the family, same has been rendered ineligible to avail the benefit of BPL/IRDP category, it can proceed to cancel the certificate, however in the instant case, Gram Panchayat concerned, having taken note of the fact that minor children of brother and sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1 were orphans, itself permitted family of petitioner No.1 to avail the benefit of BPL certificate.

Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years.

Cheating has been defined under Section 415 IPC, which provides that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Admittedly, in the case at hand, BPL certificate was issued by Gram Panchayat concerned and there is no complaint by the Gram Panchayat that such certificate has been obtained or procured fraudulently. Moreover, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat concerned, by issuing communication (Annexure P-2), has specifically clarified that Gram Panchayat concerned permitted family of petitioner No. 1 to continue to avail the benefit of BPL for the reason that he, apart from taking care of his family, was also responsible to take care of two minor children of his brother and sister-in-law who had died of AIDS. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner at the time of procuring certificate, dishonestly induced Gram Panchayat to issue the certificate, rather, at first instance, same was issued taking note of various parameters otherwise provided for issuance of the certificate.

Otherwise also, to invoke Section 420 IPC, prosecution is under obligation to prove that there was a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of said offence. Even if allegation made in the complaint is accepted to be true and correct, the accused cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating for the reason that authority responsible for issuing such certificate was in know of fact that after 2018, one son of petitioner No. 1 was in private job and from there, he was earning more than Rs.13 lakh per year, but yet it, taking note of the fact that petitioner No.1, besides taking care of his family, was also responsible to take care of two minor children of his deceased brother and sister-in-law, permitted him to avail the benefit of BPL certificate till the time, same was got cancelled by petitioner No. 2, herself after getting the government job. The offence of cheating is established when the accused induces a person to deliver any property, to do or omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done so or omitted, which in this case has not been proved.

Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that complainant, who happens to be father-in-law of sister of petitioner No. 2, proceeded to file complaint on the basis of which FIR is sought to be quashed, was registered merely to wreak vengeance. Since there is a matrimonial discord inter-se son of respondent No.4 and sister of petitioner No. 2, he, with a view to create pressure upon the petitioners, proceeded to lodge FIR, which otherwise, for the reasons and discussion made hereinabove, is not sustainable.

Since in the case at hand, criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR sought to be quashed are manifestly frivolous and vexatious and appear to have been initiated by respondent No.4 to wreak vengeance, same cannot be permitted to continue, as same would amount to abuse of process of law. Otherwise also, allegations in FIR merely state that petitioners should not be in BPL list due to changed circumstances, but certainly such fact, if any, does not disclose any cognizable offence under Sections 420 or 120B IPC. Hence, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of criminal proceedings deserves to be allowed.

Appropriate remedy, if any, available to respondent No.4 for cancellation of BPL certificate was to approach Gram Panchayat concerned, but certainly, he could not file criminal complaint, especially when it is none of his case that BPL certificate, which ultimately came to be used for procuring job in government sector, was forged or fraudulently procured.

Having scanned the entire material adduced on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that, no case much less case under the aforesaid provisions of law can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. Since for the discussion made herein above, case of the prosecution is likely to fail in all eventualities, this Court finds the case at hand to be fit one for exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS/ Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR as well as consequent proceedings. If prayer made in the instant petition is not accepted, petitioners would be unnecessarily subjected to ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to culminate in acquittal.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law taken into consideration, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 5 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed and set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.