SANJAY VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -petitioner Sanjay Verma has filed the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate ordering the framing of charges under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC against the accused and also against the formal charge-sheet dated 6.4.1999 vide which the charges were framed by the learned Magistrate against the accused.

(2.) IN the present case after the registration of the FIR under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC on 19.9.1996, the matter was investigated by the police. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in the court against the accused-petitioner Sanjay Verma and his co- accused Devinder Kumar who was Junior Engineer. During the investigation, it was found that both the accused had illegally caused huge financial losses to the Government by misappropriating government money. It was found that the accused Sanjay Verma while raising construction had not used the material as per the specifications. The buildings constructed by the petitioner in different villages were damaged on amount of sub-standard material. Under these circumstances, it was found that the accused had not only cheated but had also committed criminal breach of trust. The learned Magistrate after taking all these facts into consideration, prima facie, came to the conclusion that a case for the commission of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC was made out against the petitioner and accordingly vide order dated 12.3.1999, the learned Magistrate ordered the framing of charges against both the accused. Formal charges were framed on 6.4.1999.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find no merit in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed. In 1992(1) RCR 316 (supra), the accused had not manufactured the material but had only supplied the same which was found to be sub-standard. Taking all the facts into consideration, it was held by this Court that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and accordingly the FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed by this Court. However, in my opinion, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of the present case. As referred to above, in the present case, it was the petitioner, who was the contractor and had constructed the building which got damaged on account of user of sub-standard material etc. In 1991(2) CCC 130 (supra), this Court was considering a case under Sections 420, 406, 498-A, 494, 495 IPC. On the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held by this court that cheating and criminal breach of trust are mutually exclusive and could not co-exist in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment. However, in my opinion, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of the present case where allegations against the accused are not only that he had cheated the government by using sub-standard material in the construction of the building but had also committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the government property which was entrusted to the accused. Thus the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the present case. Similarly the authority 1983 CCC 283 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case it was found by this court that at best the matter was of civil liability as the accused had failed to fulfil the agreement regarding supply of wheat.