Dismissed

Ramchandra Choudhary S/O Shri Badri Prasad, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CRLMP/11060/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought to quash an FIR lodged against the petitioner, a Sarpanch, for alleged embezzlement of government funds. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence requiring police investigation and that the preliminary inquiry findings did not justify quashing under Section 482 Cr.PC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed and stay applications were disposed of.

Ramchandra Choudhary S/O Shri Badri Prasad, Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 11060/2022

¶4

Ramchandra Choudhary S/o Shri Badri Prasad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Mahasingh Ka Bas, Gram Panchayat Papda, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Prem Prakash Bawata S/o Ramjilal Gurjar, Presently Bdo Virat Nagar Jaipur Rural Rajasthan Permanent Address Gadh Colony, Kotputli Jaipur Rural Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

02/02/2024

¶14

Petitioner has filed instant criminal miscellaneous petition, invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeking to quash the FIR No.301/2022 registered at Police Station Virat Nagar, Jaipur (Rural) for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 120-B IPC.

¶15

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record before this Court.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that there are allegations against the petitioner, who happens to be a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Papda and against one Sh. Devkaran Bera, Village Development Officer of Gram Panchayat Papda, for embezzlement of Rs.13,42,881/- by committing financial

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]

(2 of 7)

illegalities/irregularities. There is a reference in the FIR about holding an inquiry against the petitioner by a constituted Inquiry Committee, wherein the alleged financial illegalities by the petitioner revealed and thereafter, recovery notice for Rs.6,68,441/- was issued against the petitioner and recovery notice for Rs.6,54,441/- was issued against Sh. Devkaran Bera, who deposited Rs.2,00,000/- only. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged by the Deputy Sarpanch. Thus, it prima facie appears that in respect of misappropriation of public funds by misusing the public post, under a conspiracy between petitioner and one Devkaran Bera to commit cheating, the present FIR has been lodged for the alleged offences against both accused persons. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Committee ex parte without giving an opportunity to explain the alleged financial irregularities in respect of execution of construction work of public roads, maintenance/repairing and cleaning works of roads & drains in the Gram Panchayat Papda and the whole inquiry was initiated under a political influence. Counsel submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022, whereas thereafter, in respect of embezzlement of such amount, a fresh inquiry was ordered by the Zila Parishad, Jaipur, vide order dated 27.10.2022. Hence, registration of the impugned FIR, on the basis of previous inquiry report, is unwarranted and same is politically motivated, as such the impugned FIR be held to be filed in sheer misuse of the process of law, and accordingly be quashed and set aside. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]

(3 of 7)

Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2013) 11 SCC 130] .

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and placed on record a copy of investigation report in the impugned FIR. In the investigation report, it is indicated that as per investigation commenced so far, offences for Sections 420, 406, 409 & 120-B IPC, are prima facie proved against the petitioner Ramchandra Choudhary and one Devkaran Bera. The copy of investigation report is taken on record.

¶26

Having considered rival contentions made on behalf of both parties and having adverted to the material placed on record, including the inquiry report dated 15.09.2022 and another order dated 27.10.2022 for inquiry, it appears that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for embezzlement of the government fund by misusing his power and post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Papda. Written complaints were received in respect of alleged illegalities, committed by the petitioner and one Devkaran Bera, in carrying out various kinds of constructions, repairing or cleaning works in the Gram Panchayat and thereby misappropriating huge amount of government funds, whereupon a preliminary inquiry, by the constituted Committee comprising four officials of the Panchayat Samity Virat Nagar, has already been conducted. A copy of the inquiry report dated 15.09.2022 is available on record. In the inquiry report, it is mentioned that the petitioner, despite notices and providing opportunity of hearing, did not file reply, nor submitted any explanation/evidence on his behalf. In the inquiry, on the basis of letter of petitioner dated 19.07.2022 and from the record of Gram Panchayat and on the

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]

(4 of 7)

basis of statements of witnesses & other material, it was found that there is difference in the bills/vouchers raised by the petitioner for the work done and the net expenditure. Thereafter, impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and one Devkaran Bera, for misappropriation of government funds by misusing their public posts of Sarpanch and Village Development Officer of Gram Panchayat Papda respectively. There are allegations in the FIR against the petitioner to commit cheating, misappropriation of government funds and to embezzle the public fund by misusing his capacity as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Such allegations do give rise to commission of cognizable offences which are subject matter of investigation by the Investigation Agency. It is true that before registering the impugned FIR, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, yet in respect of allegations leveled in the impugned FIR for cheating & misappropriation of funds from Government Exchequer, offensive elements are to be investigated by the Investigation Agency, independently. It is not the case of petitioner that investigation in the impugned FIR would not made fairly and impartially.

¶31

The proposition of law is well settled that the scope of jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings and departmental inquiry, travels into different arena and the basic principle is that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where the departmental proceedings and criminal case, are based on same set of facts and evidence in both proceedings is common. Reference of a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Capt. M. Paul

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]

(5 of 7)

Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 3 SCC 679] may

¶36

be given.

¶37

In the judgment of Lokesh Kumar Jain ( Supra ), referred by counsel for the petitioner, the appellant Lokesh Kumar Jain has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, therefore, on the basis of same set of facts, in respect of allegations of embezzlement, the Apex Court did not permit the prosecution to proceed in the criminal proceedings, relying on the principle of law that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of criminal charges, is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. Whereas, in the facts of case at hand, firstly in the preliminary inquiry, petitioner has been found guilty for embezzlement of government funds and merely, on the basis of the order dated 27.10.2022 (Ann.5), constituting another committee to initiate the inquiry, the inquiry report dated 15.09.2022 may not be brushed aside, more so when as per the order dated 27.10.2022, the inquiry was ordered to be completed within a period of ten days, but no inquiry has been stated to start ever. It is not the case of petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2022, in the inquiry, he has been exonerated. No another inquiry report, in pursuance of the order dated 27.10.2022 has been placed on record. In addition, it may also be observed that the impugned FIR is at the stage of investigation, hence, the ratio decidendi of judgment passed in case of Lokesh Kumar Jain ( Supra ), does not apply to facts of the present case.

¶38

It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not come up with a case that allegations of FIR, do not make out a prima facie case of

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]

(6 of 7)

constituting a cognizable offence against the petitioner. Indisputably, the contents of FIR, give rise to constitute the cognizable nature of offences, which are subject matter of investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, time and again, has held that when on the face value of the FIR and as per avertments made therein, if they disclose a cognizable offence, justifying investigation by the Police Officer, the legitimate investigation should not be stifled and in that situation, the FIR cannot be allowed to be quashed within jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶43

In case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj [(2014) 10 SCC 616] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating principles laid down in the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] , on the scope of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, held as under:-

¶44

“It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.”

¶45

In view of afore-referred discussion and reasons, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 Cr.PC, on the basis of grounds put forth by the petitioner.

(7 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:5790]

[CRLMP-11060/2022]