Dismissed

Shishir Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC14 Dec 2021C482/155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenged the charge sheet for alleged misappropriation of scholarship funds. The High Court of Uttarakhand, applying principles from Bhajan Lal, dismissed the application, holding that the case did not satisfy the criteria for quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; charge sheet not quashed.

Shishir Singh Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

Criminal Misc. Appl. (C482) No. 155 of 2021

¶4

Shishir Singh Rana …….Petitioner -Versus-

¶5

State of Uttarakhand & anr.

¶6

.......Respondents

¶7

Present:

¶8

Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.

¶9

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

¶10

Date of hearing and order

¶11

14.12.2021

¶12

1. Application for urgency hearing heard and allowed. The matter is taken for final disposal.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.

¶14

3. In this application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner being an accused in criminal case no. 6209 of 2020, of the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, arising out of the FIR No. 405 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019 at P.S. SIDCUL, Haridwar, seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 14.07.2020 filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC for brevity).

¶15

Page No. 1 of 4

¶16

4. The FIR has been lodged against the petitioner who is the owner of the U.P. College of Polytechnic for Research. It is alleged by some students that the petitioner has received money from the State of Uttarakhand and has not extended the benefit to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students for higher education and misappropriated the said money. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer found, prima facie, that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 30,27,600/- as students’ scholarship from the State of Uttarakhand on different dates. It is borne out from the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., that they have never received any scholarship by the petitioner nor they have been given any free education. Some of them even stated that they were never enrolled in the education institution in question.

¶17

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case ten students out of the 14 witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer, whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or 164 Cr.P.C., or under both the provisions have been recorded, have already appeared in the Board of examination, hence, the offences are not made out.

¶18

6. However, Mr. Amit Bhatt, the learned Dy. Advocate General, on the other hand submits that subsequent event of passing out will not take away the offence or nullify criminal intent on the part of the petitioner.

¶19

Page No. 2 of 4

¶20

7. In this connection, this Court takes into consideration the judgment of State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajan Lal & other, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein at paragraph 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of Code for quashing of the FIR, charge sheet or cognizance. The principles are as follows:-

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under 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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

Even, when such principles are satisfied, at paragraph 109 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble

¶29

Page No. 3 of 4

¶30

Supreme Court further observed as a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercises 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 F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according its whim or caprice.

¶31

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case the petitioner could not make out a case that it falls within the seven principles that enunciated above or that in such case extraordinary power or inherent powers should be exercised to quash the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer.

¶32

9. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge sheet. Hence, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶33

10. Urgent certified copies of the judgment be provided as per rules.

¶34

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶35

¶36

Page No. 4 of 4

Shishir Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishir Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mithilesh Dubey Vs Addl. District Judge/Ftc 6 Dehradun

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Deepa Devi

State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate,Haridwar. Vs Abdul Razzaq

Bache Ram Vs State of U.P

M/S Avtar Singh Fateh Singh through Its Proprietor Vs Vinay Kumar Agarwal

Sunita Jain Vs the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri