BHARANT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two petitions, CRM-M-38004 of 2019 and CRM-M-38035 of 2019. The parties in both the cases are same. Even the relief claimed in both the petition is almost the same. In both these petitions the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial court; whereby the petitioner has been ordered to appear as a witness, in the Criminal Complaint and in an another Enquiry being conducted for the purpose of section 340 Cr.P.C., respectively, and to produce the evidence mentioned in the summons issued to it has arisen from a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 3; in which, basically, it is alleged that the accused-respondent No.3 has misused official position and have caused loss to the petitioner company and he has also misappropriated funds of the company. The main allegation in the complaint is that earlier the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and had prayed to the court of magistrate to refer the matter to the police for registration of the case against the respondent No. 3 and to investigate the same. Upon the direction of the Magistrate in the matter; the FIR No.12 dated 16-01-2010 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the respondent No.3; with the allegations that the respondent No. 3 had issued broadband connections to certain parties by taking bribes; although they were not entitled to the obtain the connection under the schemes under which the connections were given to them. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 had committed offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter the investigation was conducted by the police. However, the respondent No. 3 filed a petition before this court for questioning of the said FIR. Notice has been issued by this Court in that petition. Although respondent No. 3 was personally an accused in the abovesaid FIR, however, he visited the High Court, Chandigarh, for filing of the abovesaid quashing petition, in his official car. He also engaged a counsel, allegedly, on authorization from the petitioner company, and even the fees of the Counsel were paid from the funds of the company. The respondent No. 2 again approached the police for registration of an FIR against respondent No.3; with the allegation that the respondent No. 3, while going to and coming from Chandigarh, misused the official car and the funds of the petitioner company. Since the respondent No. 3 was accused in his personal capacity, therefore, he could not have used the official vehicle for his travels from Rewari to Chandigah only for the purpose of filing a petition before the High Court. The respondent No. 3 availed the TA/DA for the said visit and even the fee for the Counsel, engaged by the respondent No.3, has been paid from the funds of the company. All this has been done by the respondent No.3 without any sanction or approval from the competent authority of the company. It was alleged that the respondent No. 3 was never authorized to use the said vehicle for his personal visits for travelling to Chandigarh, only to defend criminal case against him. He was not authorized to use the money of the Company for defending the case, in which he was an accused in his personal capacity. However, no action was taken by the police on this complaint.

(2.) On the above allegations initially the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground of locus-standi of the complainant and on the ground that necessary sanction for prosecution; as required under section 197 Cr.P.C. had not been obtained. The respondent No.2 challenged the said order in revision. The revisional court reversed the order of the Magistrate and directed reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Magistrate issued summoning order dated 10-06-2015 against the respondent No.3; under section 409 IPC. The revision petition filed by respondent No.3 was also dismissed vide order dated 02-06-2016. The respondent No.3 approached this court against the said order vide CRM-M-29738-2016, which is stated to be pending with interim stay against the proceedings of the trial court.

(3.) It appears that after getting more information under RTI the respondent No.2 again made a complaint to the police on 22-12-2017 for registration of the FIR against respondent No.3; making additional allegations regarding tempering of the log-book, claiming and obtaining money from the company by making fake bills and creating unauthorized permissions. On this complaint made by the respondent No.2 another FIR No. 703 dated 26/12/2017 was registered against respondent No. 3 under section 120-B and 409 IPC. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the sections of offences invoked against the respondent No.3. Therefore he filed his private complaint before the Magistrate dated 21-05-2018 (Registered on 20-09-2018); alleging offences which were not included by the police in FIR No. 703; and which were not part of even the earlier complaint, proceeding of which were stayed by this court. The magistrate started proceedings in this complaint and the case was at the stage of preliminary evidence. However, during investigation in FIR No.703 dated 26-12-2017 the respondent No.3 impressed upon the police that with somewhat similar allegations the complainant had initiated another complaint in the year 2010-11 also; proceedings of which had been stayed by the High Court. Therefore the police presented a cancellation report before the Magistrate on 20-10-2018. However, since the complaint dated 21-05-2018 filed by respondent No. 2 was already fixed for evidence of complainant, therefore, the Magistrate clubbed the cancellation report and the complaint; vide order dated 30-04-2019. Thereafter the impugned summons dated 22-07-2019 has been issued for production of the evidence, specified therein. The petitioner company is challenging the said summons issued to it; as a witness.