V.K. BERI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V .K. Beri, petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of FIR No. 5 dated 31.1.1995, under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which FIR was registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Sector 30, Chandigarh. The FIR is sought to be quashed by the petitioner on the ground that it was registered in a highly belated and delayed stage and was a gross mis-use and abuse of the process.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 25.9.1990 vide Annexure P.1 he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. On 1.1.1991 a case was registered against him pertaining to the transactions having taken place in the year 1987. The said case was registered after a thorough enquiry conducted by the Department as the petitioner was placed under suspension and enquiry was conducted into all the affairs of the Department. Thereafter, FIR No. 2 of 1991 was got registered under Sections 415, 419, 420, 380, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at the instance of Divisional Manager. Not satisfied with that FIR, another FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC on 13.7.1991 bearing No. 226 of 1991, Annexure P.3. The said FIR was also registered on the asking of the superior officers as certain persons were absolutely inimical towards the petitioner. The entire record was with New India Assurance Company and the petitioner had no access to that record. The petitioner has not been charge-sheeted. However, he was placed under suspension with the mala fide intention of the senior officers. Both the FIRs. were later dropped and the petitioner vide orders dated 9.8.94 was discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in FIR No. 226 of 1991. That order has become final.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents. On the record, the first written statement is dated 15.1.1996 which has been filed by respondent No. 2. A preliminary objection was taken by this respondent that quashing of said FIR Annexure P.5 will be against the pronouncement of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as when the investigation against the petitioner is in progress, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked. On merits, the stand taken by respondent No. 2 was that a case PC-5/95, CBI, Chandigarh was registered on the basis of the source information. The question of delay in the case of frauds only arises from the date the fraud came to the light and not from the date when the fraud was committed. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner along with others had committed fraud in such a manner that it could come to light after many years. The petitioner manipulated the record of the company in such a manner that the fraud could not be detected easily. During the course of investigation it was found that modus operandi of the accused persons was that he in connivance with other associates of the departments and outsiders used to book false fire policies in the names of fictitious persons and after doing the insurance, they used to show false fire accidents in the office complexes/residences and used to process the false claims with the help of one surveyor Shri B.K. Kalia. The claims so processed were for the amount from Rs. 24,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- as the Manager himself was competent to pass those claims. The petitioner was the Manager himself. Apart from this, all the bank accounts had been opened by the petitioner himself in the fictitious names by giving wrong addresses. Even addresses given in the policies were different than the addresses given in the documents. It was only to mis lead the investigation so that the persons could not be traced who had committed the fraud. All the relevant cheques of the bogus claims issued by the Insurance Company had been deposited in the accounts and payment was utilised by the petitioner Sh. V.K. Beri. The CBI during the course of investigation had seized so many insurance and bank records. That record was under scrutiny. The possibility of many more such frauds or bogus claims were likely to be unearthed. The respondent denied that the investigation was not being conducted by the authorised officers. There is no delay in the investigation. The cases were registered when the frauds came to the knowledge of the Insurance Company.