AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mala, J.—These two criminal original petitions are arising out of one and the same proceedings and as such both the matters are taken up
together for final hearing with the consent of both sides.
The Petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-15 and A-11 respectively in this case, have come forward with these petitions seeking for the
relief of quashing the proceedings pending against them in C.C. No. 166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Trichy for the
offence under Sections 409 and 120(b) of I.P.C.
The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 10813 of 2009 viz., S.P. Ganesan, who is arrayed as A-15 was working as an Assistant from 11.09.2000
to 31.07.2003 and the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 10817 of 2009 viz., Vasantha, who is arrayed as A-11 was also working as an Assistant
from 01.03.2001 to 13.03.2003.
There are totally 17 accused in this case and the charge against all the accused is to the effect that the Petitioners and the other accused have
been entrusted with the work of collection of registration fees in respect of new vehicles, giving new permits, license and driving license, collection
of compounding amount, advance amount regarding the registration of numbers, financial registration amount, financial cancellation amount,
surrender of license amount, license renewal fees amount and other amounts to be collected through computer and on the same day such amounts
have to be brought into the account of the department. By misusing such power and responsibility, it is alleged that these two Petitioners, during
their period of service, have misappropriated the government money to the tune of Rs. 1,180/- and 9,917/- respectively, by tampering the entries
in the computers of the said office and caused loss of revenue to the government. Hence, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against nearly
18 persons. Out of them, 17 persons were charge sheeted including these Petitioners. In that disciplinary proceedings, both the Petitioners were
found not guilty and they were exonerated from the charges levelled against them. Even then, on the basis of the complaint given by the Deputy
Transport Commissioner cum Regional Transport Officer, Trichirappalli, a criminal case has been registered in crime No. 9 of 2003 for the offence
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 477(A) of I.P.C. against 18 persons including these Petitioners. After completing the investigation, the
investigating officer has filed a charge sheet against 17 persons, in which these Petitioners are arrayed as A15 and A11 for the offence under
Sections 409 and 120(b) of I.P.C. After receipt of the summons from the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Trichy, these Petitioners have come
forward with these petitions for quashing the same.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both petitions would submit that in view of the exoneration of these Petitioners from the
charges levelled against them in the disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be proceeded in the criminal case as both in the disciplinary proceedings
and criminal case, the charges are one and the same and identical and as such, the proceedings in C.C. No. 166 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No. II, Trichy is liable to be quashed.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would further submit that this issue has already been discussed by the learned Judge of this
Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 7853 and 7854 of 2008 in respect of A14 and 12 concerned and considered the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex
Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 897 and R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, and quashed the
proceedings against A14 and A12 and hence, he prayed for the allowing of these petitions and quashing the proceedings against these Petitioners.
The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has also fairly conceded that these Petitioners were exonerated from the charges levelled
against them in the disciplinary proceedings, after the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 17 persons including these Petitioners and
hence, he prayed for the dismissal of these petitions.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions put forth by either side and also perused the entire case materials available on record.
The final order of the domestic enquiry of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 10813 of 2009 viz., S.P. Ganesan, which has been filed in the
typed set of papers in page No. 27, reads as follows:
During the course of oral inquiry the charged official produced evidences for the remittance of the amount of Rs. 1,180/- into the Government
account on the same day. Hence the inquiry officer stated that the loss of revenue to the government is not involved in this case.
Hence the charge No. 1 and charge No. 2 levelled against her are held as NOT PROVED.
The final order of the domestic enquiry of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 10817 of 2009 viz., S. Vasantha, which has been filed in the typed
set of papers in page No. 27, reads as follows:
During the course of oral inquiry the charged official produced evidences for the remittance of the amount of Rs. 1,180/- into the Government
account on the same day. Hence the inquiry officer stated that the loss of revenue to the government is not involved in this case.
Hence the charge No. 1 and charge No. 2 levelled against her are held as NOT PROVED.
A perusal of the said final orders would reveal that in the disciplinary proceedings, they were exonerated from the charges.
At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 7853 and 7854 of 2008. In that judgment, in
paragraph 14, the learned Judge has considered the para No. 17 of the decision in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 897
and in paragraph 15, the learned Judge has considered the para No. 20 of the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426 and held that the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court is clearly applicable to the facts of that case as in that case also the
charges are one and the same and identical in both the departmental proceedings and in criminal proceedings and as already stated in the
departmental proceedings both the Petitioners have been exonerated from the charges levelled against them as not proved and allowed those
petitions and quashed the proceedings against them pending in C.C. No. 166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II Trichy.
The relevant portion of the paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 are as follows:
Para 14. At this juncture it is relevant to refer the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar
reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 897. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in P.S.
Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC (Cr.) 897. The Hon''ble Apex Court in that decision has held as follows:
The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in
the departmental proceedings. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings in one and the same.
If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports
submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the Appellant in criminal proceedings.
Para 15. In the very same decision the Hon''ble Apex Court referred the earlier decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal (1992 SCC (Cri.) 426) and held as follows:
At the risk of repetition, we may state that the charge had not been proved and on that basis the Appellant was cleared of departmental
enquiry. In this connection, we may also usefully cite a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cri.) 426). This Court
after considering almost all earlier decisions has given guidelines relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an FIR or a complaint. This Court observed as
follows: (SCC pp.378-79, paras 102-3)
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar angrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where the is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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 due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
The present case can be brought under more than one need given above without any difficulty.
Considering the above said citation, I am accept the view taken by the learned judge. Hence, as per the decision reported in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal reported in R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, and P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC 897, I am
of the view that since the Petitioners were exonerated from the charges levelled against them in the disciplinary proceedings to continue against the
Petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of court and as such this Court is constrained to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings insofar as the Petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-15 and
A-11, are concerned pending in C.C. No. 166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Trichy are hereby quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.