The Delhi High Court held that if an employee is exonerated in departmental proceedings on identical charges, continuing criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process due to the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases.
FIR No.138/2012 under Sections 392/411/34 IPC and all related proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
Verma S/o Sh. Rajender Verma R/o Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi came to the police station on 06.07.2012 and handed over one packet with manik stone weighing 149 gms. He stated that the petitioner gave the said packet to him about 10-12 days ago and asked him to keep it with the assurance that he would collect the same within 2-3 hours but he had not collected it. This led to the registration of aforesaid FIR.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
of 15 days from the date of its receipt.
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
proceedings.
| Charge framed in the case FIR No. 138/2012 |
Charge in the Departmental Inquiry |
|---|---|
| I, Dinesh Kumar, MM-08 / Central / | I, Inspr. Gajraj Singh Meena, |
| Delhi, do hereby charge you accused | Enquiry Officer, Charge you Ct. |
| Ajeet Kumar S/o Ram Kumar aged | Ajeet Kumar No. 3951/DAP (then |
| about 48 years as under: | 1656/N), (PIS No.28892362) that while you were posted at Police |
| That on 07.06.2012 at about | Station Kotwali a case vide FIR No. |
| 5:30 p.m., at in front of Shop |
138, dt. 07/06/2012 u/s |
| No.1660, Dariba Kalan, Chandni | 365/379/411/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali |
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
| Charge framed in the case FIR No. 138/2012 |
Charge in the Departmental Inquiry |
|---|---|
| Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction PS: Kotwali, a robbery of five packets of Manik belonging to complainant Pramod Yadav was committed and out of those robbed property you had kept some part of the property with Rishi Verma and told him that you would collect the same after two/three hours and thus you had received or retained the said property dishonestly knowingly or having reason to believe to be stolen property and hence thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/S 411 IPC and within my cognizance. I hereby direct you be tried by this court for the abovesaid charges. |
was registered on the statement of Sh. Pramod Yadav s/o Biru Yadav r/o E-115, Shastri Park, Delhi. He alleged that one Parmod Kumar along-with his associates snatched 05 packets containing ‘Manik’ stones from him. He apprehended one accused Parmod Kumar on the spot along-with one packet of 'Manik' stones but his associates ran away from the spot with four packets. During investigation, one of the accused namely Gopal disclosed that he gave two packets of 'Manik' stones to you Ct. Ajeet Kumar; Beat Constable of police station Kotwali through Sh. Inderjeet Singh. Later, on 06/07/12 one Sh. Rishi Verma s/o Rajender Prasad r/o 2/18, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi came to police station and handed over one packet containing 'Manik' stones, weighting 149 gms. He told in the police station that you Ct. Ajeet Kumar gave this packet to him about 10-12 days ago and asked him to keep it with him assuring that you would collect the same within 2-3 hours. But you did not collect it. You Ct. Ajeet Kumar No. 1656/N did not join the investigation and absented yourself vide DD No. 66-B, dt. 25/06/12, P. S. Kotwali without any intimation / permission of competent authority. You Ct. Ajeet Kumar were |
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2184/2021 By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
Page 5 of 21
| Charge framed in the case FIR No. 138/2012 |
Charge in the Departmental Inquiry |
|---|---|
| placed under suspension vide order No. 8856-86/HAP/P-I/North, dated 27/06/12. On 08/08/12 accused Ct. Ajeet Kumar got anticipatory bail from the Court of Sh. A.K. Chawla, Distt. Judge and Addl. Session Judge, Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi. You reported back for duty in P.S. Kotwali vide DD No. 21-B, dated 13/08/12 after absenting himself for a period of 48 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes unauthorisedly. You were formally arrested in the above mentioned case on 22/08/12 and released on bail. |
|
| The above mentioned act on the part of you Ct. Ajeet Kumar No.3951/DAP (then 1656/N), PIS No. 28892362 amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer in the discharge of your duty being a member of discipline force. Hence, the same renders you liable to be punished under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules – 1980 read with Section 21 of Delhi Police Act – 1978. |
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
(packet of manik stone) after receiving the same from one of the co-accused. 16. A perusal of the list of witnesses, which forms part of the chargesheet filed by the police under section 173 CrPC, shows that the prosecution has cited Rishi Verma as well as Inderjeet Singh as relevant witnesses insofar as allegations against the present petitioner are concerned. This position is also affirmed by the learned APP, on instructions from the IO who is present in the court. In the departmental enquiry, the department had examined various witnesses including main witness Rishi Verma as PW3. It is petitioner who examined witness Inderjeet Singh as DW1, who has been cited as witness by the prosecution in the criminal case. Thus, the main witnesses cited by the prosecution in the criminal case to prove the allegations against the present petitioner, were examined in the departmental enquiry as well.
“ DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE
During the course of enquiry, I have examined six Prosecution Witnesses in support of the allegation levelled against Ct. Ajeet Kumar No.3951/DAP. All the witnesses were relevant, reliable and independent who produced various kind of record connected to this Departmental Enquiry. PW-1 was a formal witness who produced the documentary evidence (posting of delinquent in P.S. Kotwali at the time of incident on 07/06/12). PW-2 was also a formal witness and just produced documentary evidence i.e. Copy of FIR No. 138, dt. 07/06/12 u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, North Distt., Delhi and
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
arrest of delinquent in that case. PW-3 was a very important and main witness in this matter. He proved that the delinquent gave him a packet of Manik at his shop saying he found it lying there in the market and asked him to keep it with him and enquire if, it belongs to somebody. But the delinquent did not came back to take it. This PW stated that he deposited that packet in PS Kotwali when the delinquent did not come to collect it. PW-4 proved that a case of snatching of packets of Manik was got registered at P.S. Kotwali vide FIR No. 138/12, one accused Pramod was got arrested in that case, Rishi Verma (PW-3) deposited a packet of Manik in police station and told that the delinquent had given it to him for keeping it with him , a seizure memo was prepared reg. that packet of Manik and Rishi Verma signed on it, the delinquent got anticipatory bail and was formally arrested in the above said case. PW-5 proved that the delinquent was suspended in the above mentioned matter. PW-6 proved the incident of dt. 07/06/12.
All the above 6 PWs were relevant, reliable and independent and their testimony has lot of weight in this departmental enquiry. PWs-1, 2 and 5 were formal witnesses and just produced documentary evidence. PW-3 was the main witness this matter. He crystal clearly stated that on one day in June-2012, the delinquent came to his shop in the evening and handed one white colour packet to him saying he has found it lying in the market. He then asked him to keep it with him and enquire from the market if it belongs to somebody. But he did not came back to collect the packet after that day. Here it is very clear that the delinquent found a packet lying on the road and very selflessly took it to this PW and asked him to verify if it belongs to somebody. He has done no wrong here. Though he did not go to collect that packet or even did not enquire about it later on but it does not prove he has any criminal intention. It was a simple thing and may be possible it might have slipped from his mind. This PW, during cross examination, stated that when
Signature Not Verified
Page 8 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
the delinquent gave him that packet it showed his honesty. This PW also replied during cross examination that he had never asked/contacted the delinquent to take back that packet. Even this PW gave wrong answer during cross examination that no Seizure Memo was prepared reg. the packet he handed over to SHO Tyagi Ji of P.S. Kotwali and he even denied to have signed on any Seizure Memo. Why he told this white lie? The reason is only best known to him. From the statement of PW-4 it is clear that the Hon'ble Court granted anticipatory bail to delinquent and he was arrested formally only. No evidence has surfaced against the delinquent during the course of enquiry. This shows that there is no evidence against the delinquent in this case and he was falsely implicated by the police to the reason only best known to them.
The statements of DWs also could not be taken out of account. DW-1 proved that nobody gave him any packet of Manik to be delivered to Ct. Ajeet. He also denied that he knows any Gopal in Chandni Chowk. He also deposed that one police officer wrote something on a paper and got his signature on it. DW-2 proved that he had not given any packet to Sardar Inderjeet Singh (DW-1). He also deposed that he was beaten in the police station and police officer got his signature on a paper on which something was written already. He was semi literate hence, he could not read it. DW-3, who was also posted in P .S. K.otwali at the time of incident, proved that one Ct. Shokeen of P .S. K.otwali contacted him and told him that SHO has asked him to arrange some Maniks. He also showed him some sample and told him that the SHO had ordered to arrange the same type of Maniks. This DW took Ct. Shokeen to a Jewellery Shop from where Ct. Shokeen bought about 250 grams Maniks costing about Rs. 35000/-. (Copy of Bill is attached herewith for ready reference). The DWs are not related to or linked to the delinquent in any way. Hence, there is hardly any chance that they are tutored. No PW supported the prosecution case and in their statements never uttered a single word against the
Signature Not Verified
Page 9 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
delinquent.
CONCLUSION:
After carefully going through the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses and other evidence/material adduced during the course of enquiry it is not proved that the delinquent Ct. Ajeet Kumar No. 3951/DAP, PIS No. 28892362 had done any criminal act. Hence, the charge leveled against him is not proved. ”
(emphasis supplied)
“I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O, Statements of witnesses, written representation of delinquent in response to disagreement note and other material brought on D.E file. The delinquent was also heard in O.R. on 03.04.20187. During the course of enquiry 06 PWs in support of the allegations leveled against delinquent Const. have been examined. PW-1, 2 & 5 were formal witnesses and just produced documentary evidence. PW-3 was the main witness in this matter. He crystal clearly stated that on one day in June 2012, the delinquent came to his shop in the evening and handed over one white colour packet to him by saying that he has found it lying in the market. He then asked him to keep it with him and enquire from the market if it belongs to somebody. But he did not came back to collect the same after that day. It is very clear here that the delinquent found a packet lying on the road and very selflessly took it to this PW and asked him to verify if it belongs to somebody. He has done nothing wrong here. Though, he did not go to collect
Signature Not Verified
Page 10 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
the packet or even did not enquire about it later on, but it does not prove that he has any criminal intention. It was a simple thing and may be possible it might have slipped from his mind. This PW during the cross examination stated that when the delinquent gave him that packet it showed his honesty. This PW also replied during cross examination that he had never asked/contacted the delinquent to take back that packet. Further, from the statement of PW-4, it is clear that the Hon'ble Court granted anticipatory bail to delinquent and he was arrested formally only. No evidence has surfaced against the delinquent during the course of enquiry. Moreover, the statement of DWs also could not be taken out of account. DW-1 proved that nobody gave him any packet of Manik to be delivered to delinquent Const. Ajeet Kumar. He also denied that he knows any Gopal in Chandni Chowk. He also deposed that one police officer wrote something on a paper and got his signature on it. DW-2 proved that he not given any packet of Manik to Sardar Inderjeet Singh (DW1). He also stated that one police officer got his signature on a paper on which something was already written.
Keeping in view of above captioned facts and circumstances as well as considering the findings of E.O, representation of delinquent Const. against the disagreement note, it is proved that there is nothing adverse noticed against Const. Ajeet Kumar, No. 3951/DAP during the D.E proceeding. Therefore, I, Satyavir Katara, Dy. Commissioner of Police, 6th Bn. DAP, Delhi agreeing with the conclusion of Enquiry Officer exonerate Const. Ajeet Kumar, NO. 3951/DAP from the charge leveled against him in the departmental enquiry and the instant DE is hereby filed. However, the suspension period will be decided after the finalization of criminal case pending against him. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Page 11 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
charge framed in the present case, therefore, the question that needs to be addressed is as to whether the present FIR can be quashed on the basis of the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings.
“20. In P.S. Rajya (supra), the appellant therein was exonerated of all the charges in the departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission and the conclusion of exoneration was concurred by the Union Public Service Commission which led to the passing of final orders by the President in favour of the appellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of the charge, the High Court dismissed the petition. The challenge was taken to the Supreme Court. In the given factual backdrop, the
Signature Not Verified
Page 12 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
Hon’ble Supreme Court formulated the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which reads as under:
“3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.”...
21. Then the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the above formulated question and quashed the criminal proceedings by observing thus:
“17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that 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. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For 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……
xxxx xxxx xxxx
23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that
Signature Not Verified
Page 13 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-319961 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.”
22. In Lokesh Kumar Jain (supra), an FIR was registered against the appellant therein alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation of Rs.4,39,617/-. In departmental proceedings with identical charges, the appellant was exonerated on the ground that it was not clear as to who received the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon copies of bills were not available. In the criminal case, the police also made repeated oral requests and statutory notices under Section 91 CrPC but the department of the appellant could not provide the requisite incriminating documents. The police, therefore, submitted the final closure report to the Magistrate after five months of lodging of FIR. But the Magistrate upon submission of the complainant that he is ready to cooperate with the police and procure requisite documents, directed re-investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Thereafter, investigation remained pending for 12-13 years inspite of the appellant making request to the police authorities to complete the investigation. The appellant move the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him, but the High Court declined to quash the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings. Relying upon the decision of PS Rajya (supra), it was observed as under:
“23. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, this Court noticed that the
1Vide order dated 27.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reserving the reasons to be given later, which were given vide judgment in P.S. Rajya (supra)
Signature Not Verified
Page 14 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of report of the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission. The criminal case was pending since long, in spite of the fact that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding for same charge.
24. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that if the charges which are identical could not be established in the departmental proceedings, one wonders what is there further to proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings.
25.Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR……
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
28. ……..Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and as the appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be quashed .”
[Emphasis supplied]
23. In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. ,2 the question arose that after the exoneration of the appellant in the adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign
2(2011) 3 SCC 581
Signature Not Verified
Page 15 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
Exchange Regulation Act, whether criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can be allowed to be continued. In this factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case . In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27)
“… I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
Signature Not Verified
Page 16 of 21
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2184/2021 By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases .
xxxx xxxx xxxx
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
[Emphasis supplied]
24. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”) whereby the CVC refused to give sanction
Signature Not Verified
Page 17 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
for prosecution of the appellant opining that prima facie charges do not seem to be established against the appellant, observed that chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak and accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge whereby they had observed that there was no need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and proceeded against the petitioner. For making such observations the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to para 38(vii) of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The relevant observation of the Court reads thus:
“14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.
15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-122011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak . We, therefore, set aside the judgment [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.”
[Emphasis supplied]
25. At this stage the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , relating to the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings emanating therefrom could advantageously be referred to, wherein the Court observed as under:
“102. 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 under Section 482 of
Signature Not Verified
Page 18 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein 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.
(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 under Section 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 under Section 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 engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
Signature Not Verified
Page 19 of 21
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2184/2021 By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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 due to private and personal grudge.”
[Emphasis supplied]
26. The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. The reasoning for this recourse articulated in above decisions is that the standard of proof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higher than ‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings. In case the lower threshold could not be met in the disciplinary proceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is higher.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 20 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
Sections 392/411/34 IPC registered at PS Kotwali alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
DECEMBER 5, 2024 N.S. ASWAL
Signature Not Verified
Page 21 of 21
CRL.M.C. 2184/2021
Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date: 17.1 2.2024 17:29:09
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed once the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings based on identical allegations.
Whether the lower standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings compared to criminal proceedings justifies quashing FIRs after exoneration.
Whether continuing criminal prosecution after exoneration in disciplinary inquiries amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of PoliceRelied on¶11
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636 · Who else cites this
Subhash Sharma vs. Govt of NCT, DelhiRelied on¶11
Subhash Sharma vs. Govt of NCT, Delhi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3762 · Who else cites this
P.S. Rajya Vs. State of BiharRelied on¶89
P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶105
Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC 130 · Who else cites this
Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West BengalRelied on¶118
Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 581 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶151
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AJIT KUMAR
STATE NCT OF DELHI
VIKAS MAHAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
