AMARJOT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing F.I.R. No. 37 dated 21.10.1981 lodged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 I.P.C. at Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh Branch, Chandigarh, and with a further prayer of quashing the criminal proceedings thereon, including sanction order dated 30.9.1991 to prosecute the petitioner.

(2.) IN brief, the facts as given in the petition are that while the petitioner was working as Lady Social Education Organiser with the State Government, she was appointed as Lady Instructor, i.e. in the year 1971. In the year 1977, petitioner was sent on deputation with the Central Government as Youth Coordinator. She was appointed as such at Nehru Yuvak Kendra at Amritsar. Petitioner remained with the Central Government as Youth Coordinator upto the year 1981, whereafter she was sent to her parent department, i.e. to the State Government on the same very post, in the year 1982. After completion of period of deputation with the Central Government, as case, FIR No. 37 dated 21.10.1981 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner at Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh Branch, Chandigarh. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that the petitioner caused a loss of Rs. 8422/- to the department, which has been misappropriated by the petitioner while performing duties as Youth Coordinator at Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Amritsar. Though the FIR was lodged on 21.10.1981, yet nothing was done in the matter till the year 1984. As a matter of fact, petitioner was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar. In pursuance of the said F.I.R., a challan was put in on 28.2.1984, and the petitioner was charged for various offences by the Special Judge. Vide order dated 22.8.1991, the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, quashed the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that proper sanction had not been given by the Government in the case of the petitioner. However, vide that order, the prosecution was directed to file a fresh case against the accused (petitioner) after obtaining a proper sanction. Petitioner, in this petition, is aggrieved, by that part of order vide which the prosecution has been directed to file a fresh case against hereafter obtaining proper sanction, on the ground that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1979-80, and the prosecution agency has failed to establish any case against the petitioner till date. Further, it has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution agency cannot be allowed, to proceed further on the F.I.R. after a period of 13 years, and being a state matter, petitioner would not be able to defend herself if it is allowed to continue at this stage.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. In this case, as noticed, the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1979-80. An F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner in the year 1981. Challan was out in against the petitioner on 28.2.1984, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed vide order dated 22.8.1991 by the Special Judge, i.e. after a lapse of more than six years. Both the Governments were asked to give sanction immediately after the decision of the case but the Central Government till the filing of the reply, had not accorded sanction and it was only at the time of arguments that copy of sanction order was placed on record. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution is not serious in pursuing the matter and there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay caused. The matter is pending for years together, and this has caused strain and harassment to the petitioner, and apart from that, she must have incurred sufficient expenses to defend herself of charges, i.e. causing loss to the department to the tune of Rs. 8422/-. In M/s. Munshi Ram, Ram Niwas v. Collector Food and Supplies Department, 1991(4) JT SC 151, the Supreme Court directed the prosecution to drop criminal proceedings launched against the appellant therein as there was no explanation of the delay caused by prosecution in pursuing the matter. It was observed by the Supreme Court in para-9 of that judgment, as under :-