ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sardar Singh, S. D.O., Sabuana Drainage Sub-Division, Canal Colony, Fazilka, filed criminal complaint Annexure P. I against his immediate subordinate Ashok Kumar, Sectional Officer functioning under him in the same sub-division and contractor Bihari Lal, for criminal breach of trust through misappropriation of 500 bags of cement valued at Rs. 20,400/- under sections 409/406/379/109 of the Indian Penal Code on January 5, 1984 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. It is stated in paragraphs I to 9 of the complaint that First Information Report No. 773 was got registered against the accused in respect of these very accusations on 4th November, 1982 and thereafter the matter was also referred to the Fraud Squad of the Police Department but no action was taken against the accused petitioners on account of their influence with the local police as also local politicians. Hence the complaint.

(2.) BOTH the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint Annexure P. I have filed Criminal Misc. No. 2942-M of 1989 for quashing the complaint aforesaid on the grounds that First Information Report No. 773 dated 4th November, 1982 based on the same allegations having been got cancelled by A.S.I. Shamsher Singh of Anti Fraud Squad on 20th January, 1984 and letter No. 295,/V.C/21 1/83 BTA dated 18th May, 1984 addressed to CE/Vigilance-cum-Technical Examiner having not brought any response, the respondent has filed the complaint Annexure P. I to cover up his own inefficiency and lapses and that there is absolutely nothing on record to rope in petitioner No. 2 who is only a private contractor.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on facts. First Information Report No. 773 dated 4th November, 1982 in respect of the same accusations having been cancelled on 20th January, 1984, complaint Annexure P. I filed by S.D.O. respondent against the two petitioners is obviously an abuse of the process of the court; more so when it has been filed without obtaining instructions from the higher authorities. Rather to the contrary it becomes evident from a reading of Annexure P. 2 that the department is placing the blame and fixing responsibility on the complainant himself instead of the two accused named by him in the complaint. It was to divert the authorities to a different track that the respondent coined this private complaint against the petitioners, even after cancellation of the First Information Report against them.