KABUL SINGH SABHARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KABUL Singh Sabbharwal, Executive Engineer (retired), has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the first information report No.188 dated 3rd January, 1980, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jullundur. This first information report under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and his co -accused, namely, Saminder Singh, S.D.E. Mechanical Division, Amritsar, and Gurdev Singh, Sectional Officer Amritsar, and Surinder Singh proprietor of Messrs M.G.T. Auto Enterprises, Luxmi Market, Jullundur, at the instance of Darshan Singh Inspector of Police and the same reads as under : "It has been learnt from reliable sources that in January, 1974, Kabal Singh, Executive Engineer. Mechanical Division, Jullundur, Saminder Singh, S.D.E. Mechanical Division, Amritsar, and Gurdev Singh, Sectional Officer, Amritsar, were posted as such. These officers in conspiracy with Surinder Singh, Proprietor Messers M.G.T. Auto Enterprises, Luxmi Market, Jullundur (City) falsely gave out that they purchased certain spare parts for the repair of a Motor Grader No. 212 (belonging to the Department) from the aforesaid firm. Thereafter on 16 -1 -1974 a false bill No. RR 32/74 dated 15 -1 -74 was passed by the aforesaid officers. And on 17 -1 -1974 the above -mentioned firm was issued a cheque No. 339793 -003398 in the sum of Rs. 5123/ -. Whatever repairs mere required to be carried out on the Motor Grader were not effected. And defective parts thereof were not replaced. It is thus that the abovementioned officers have with dishonest intention misused their positions. And have misappropriated Government money by forging false documents. From what has been stated above, a prima facie offence under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B Indian Penal Code is disclosed "Ruqqa" is being sent through Ajit Singh Constable No. 617. Sd/ - Darshan Singh, Inspector of Police. 3 -1 -1980" The prayer clause in this petition reads as under : - "It is, therefore, prayed that F.I.R. No 188 dated 3 -1 -1980, P. S Division No. 4. Jullundur, under Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Sections 420/467, 468/471, 120 -B Indian Penal Code be quashed. In the alternative, it is prayed that suitable directions be issued to the respondent to expedite the investigation into the offences alleged against the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the result of such investigation as early is possible". It would be pertinent to note at this stage that in the prayer clause the petitioner did not contend that the first information report should be quashed for the reason that no prima facie offence was made out from the facts as contained in the first information report. There was a simple prayer for quashing the first information report and, in the alternative, for a direction to the state of Punjab to expedite the investigation of the case.

(2.) THE main contention raised by Mr. B.S. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that these offences relate to the year 1974 and that regarding these allegations a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and that the inquiry was concluded in the same year and the following order was passed by the Deputy Secretary, P.W.D., Punjab, on 5th July, 1978 : - "After considering your reply you have been found guilty of financial irregularity in not obtaining the permission of the Superintending Engineer before inviting quotations for the repair of Grader No. 212. You are hereby awarded the punishment of 'Simple Warning' for this lapse on your part. The Government hopes that you shall not be found guilty of such negligence in future". I do not find any substance in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because the holding of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner would not be a bar to his subsequent prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of an offence.

(3.) IT is true that there is no blanket bar against the quashing of a first information report and the consequent investigation, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but these inherent powers have to be exercised very sparingly. As held in a Full Bench authority of this Court reported as Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1982 (1) C.L.R. 638, the first information report can be quashed when, even if accepted as true, it discloses the commission of no cognizable offence, when the materials subsequently collected in the course of an investigation further disclose the commission of no such cognizable offence, when the continuation of no such investigation would amount to an abuse of power by the police thus necessitating interference in the ends of justice and when, even if it or its subsequent investigation purports to raise a suspicion of a cognizable offence, the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. The petitioner has neither levelled any allegation of mala fides against the investigating agency nor averred that the action or investigating agency is an abuse of the process of law. A bare reading of the first information report discloses that the petitioner in conspiracy with his other co -accused falsely gave out that they had purchased certain spare parts for the repair of a motor grader No. 212 belonging to the Department from Messrs M.G.T. Auto Enterprises, Jullundur, that a false bill No. 32174 dated 15th January, 1974 was passed by the petitioner and the other officers of the Department named in the first information report, that on 17th January 1974, cheque No. 339793 -003379 in the sum of Rs. 5123 was issued in the name of the aforesaid firm and that whatever repairs were shown to have been carried out on the motor grader were in fact not done and the defective parts were not replaced and thus it prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offences mentioned therein. Consequently the prayer regarding the quashing of the first information report is declined and the petition is accepted to the extent only that the investigating authority is directed to expedite the investigation and submit the report as early as possible.