R.K. Nema vs State of M.P.

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—Present petitions have been directed seeking relief of quashment of proceedings of Sessions Trial Nos. 712/11 and 713/11 respectively under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC on the basis of respective FIRs.

Necessary facts, in short, are that vide letter dated 22.7.2009, T.R. Aathiya, Manager of Sewa Shakari Samiti, Kesli on the basis of Audit Report pertains to working of the year 1997-98 of Samiti, lodged the FIR u/s 420 of the IPC against K.L. Bhatt, Shakha Prabandhak, R.K. Nema, Sakha Prabandhak//Parvekshak, Ramcharan Sahu, Mahesh Singh Rajput, Ganesh Singh Rajput and Laxmi Pateriya, Sales Men. Substance of allegation was that the limit of Rs. 3 lacs was given to Society for the withdrawal form of the Bank, but as a result of conspiracy and negligence of accused persons, about more than Rs. 10 lacs have been withdrawn and interpolation and forgery has been made in concerning registers of Society in showing the stocks of grains etc..

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid FIR, it has been alleged that as a result of connivance that Samiti Prabandhak and Sakha Prabandhak both withdrew the money beyond the prescribed limit and accused persons committed forgery and embezzlement of the money. Learned counsel further submits that this matter has been registered after a period of about 10-11 years that too after retirement of the petitioner from his service. In the Audit Report against the petitioner, only some formal irregularities have been pointed out and that is not indicative of commission of crime as required for cheating and for embezzlement of money under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC respectively. Merely on the basis of not providing the record of Audit Committee, no offence is made out. There is clear distinction between the working of Samiti and the working of Bank. On the basis of ambiguous Audit Report, FIR has been registered which is by itself a vague piece of document and continuation of prosecution on the aforesaid report will amount to abuse of process.

Per contra, learned Panel lawyer for the State submits that name of the petitioner appeared in the FIR itself and it is evident right from the beginning. Whatever has been contained by him is nothing, but the matter of trial because on the basis of some Audit Report, if it is found that it is not mere a case of financial irregularities, but it is a crime as required under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC. In the capacity of Shakha Prabandhak and Samiti Prabandhak both, there is a limit on withdrawal. Whatsoever averred by the petitioner can be raised in the trial Court during trial and cross examination of the witnesses.

Considering the rival contentions on the basis of aforesaid controversial facts, order of quashment cannot be passed. Whether audit report will help the petitioner or not is the matter of trial. In FIR, name of the petitioner has appeared and prima facie material is available against him. No opinion on merits can be given by this Court at this stage. Merely on the ground of limitation also petitioner cannot get any relief because alleged offences are punishable with more than 7 years jail sentence. However, this point of delay also can be raised during investigation/trial at appropriate stage.

Petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.