BHARAT LAL TALWARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Kotwali Morena, District Morena registering Crime No.818/2018 dt.11.8.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so also for quashing of consequential criminal proceeding.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and was initially appointed in the Tribal Welfare Department as an Area Organizer on 01.05.1981. Thereafter, he was promoted as District Organizer in the year 1990 and further as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare in the year 2000. In the year 2006, he was promoted as Dy. Commissioner. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2013. According to the FIR, when the petitioner was posted in District Morena from July 2010 to June 2011, then one Sourav Gupta - respondent No.2 had handed over a letter signed by Smt. Usha Ajay Singh, Divisional Dy. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Chambal Division, Morena, containing inquiry report made on the basis of an application received from one Shri Ramgopal Bansal, Bahujan Sangharsh Dal, according to which, petitioner had committed serious irregularities and corruption in the matter of appointment of 24 daily wage employees.

(3.) Petitioner's contention is that in regard to such irregularities, a departmental inquiry was initiated and as per the inquiry report, the departmental inquiry was conducted and report was submitted to the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior vide Annexure P/4 and preliminary findings were recorded and thereafter a detailed inquiry was conducted vide Annexure P/5 and thereafter Special Police Establishment has also inquired into the matter, as is evident from Annexure P/8 and sought information as to the action taken against the petitioner. It is submitted that parallel proceedings; one at the level of Lokayukt Establishment and another at the level of the department in regard to the same subject matter, are not warranted and therefore the impugned FIR filed by the departmental authorities should be quashed.