KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the FIR (Annexure P.3) dated 4.9.1996 registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE petitioner needed money for the marriage of his son. He, therefore, applied for non-refundable advance of Rs. 40,000/- from his General Provident Fund in May, 1993. The petitioner had also made an application for a non- refundable advance in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- in January, 1993. According to the record of the office, petitioner did not get the payment of Rs. 30,000/- against the first application. Because earlier amount had not been paid, the application of the petitioner for second advance of Rs. 40,000/- was also not decided. Ultimately, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by treating it an advance against the first application of January 1993. As noticed earlier petitioner made a second application for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in May, 1993. In the meantime, petitioner was nearing retirement which was due in September, 1993. At the relevant time, more than Rs. 40,000/- was standing to the credit of the petitioner in the General Provident Fund. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he has not committed any offence of cheating even if the allegations are accepted at their face value. Petitioner retired on 30.9.1993. This retirement was, however, subject to any disciplinary cases/deduction or recovery of fund against the petitioner. On the date of retirement, the petitioner had exactly Rs. 60,974/- to his credit, much more than Rs. 30,000/-. He is alleged to have taken money by way of fraud. The matter was investigated by the Police. During the course of investigation, the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000/- together with interest on 23.8.1996. The Investigating Officer found that no offence had been committed by the petitioner. It was, however, recommended that the Office Superintendent who has been negligent in performance of his duties should be proceeded against. In spite of this, the FIR which is the subject matter of the present petition, Annexure P.3 has been registered.

(3.) I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties. Reply has been filed in which it is categorically admitted that a sum of Rs. 60,974/- were standing to the credit of the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Therefore, it becomes obvious that amount of money which has been paid to the petitioner is money which rightly belongs to the petitioner. Both the applications made by the petitioner are bonafide. If the record of the earlier payment of Rs. 30,000/- was not kept by the Office, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. It was the duty of the office to maintain proper accounts. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has acted with dishonest intent. Even the Investigating Officer has found that the petitioner has not committed the offence of cheating. Apart from this, any amount which has been withdrawn by the petitioner has been paid back to the General Provident Fund account together with interest. Petitioner after retirement has settled in America. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to prolong the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.