NEERAJ GULATI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, filed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as "Cr.P.C."), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was registered in Police Station CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P., i.e. FIR No.09/2016, dtd. 3/4/2016, under Ss. 420, 406, 409, 411, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(I) d, 13(I) d (ii), 13 (I) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the Indian Technomac Company Limited and its officials. The petitioner had worked for some time before the registration of the FIR, as the Company Secretary of the said Company for a period of about fourteen months till 16/3/2011. At the relevant time, the Company was run and controlled by Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who was the prime accused and also the Managing Director of the Company. The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was allowed and anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on 19/8/2019. The Investigating Agency filed Supplementary Charge Sheet, dtd. 19/3/2020 in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer verified that the petitioner had worked as a Company Secretary for a brief period of fourteen months upto 16/3/2011 in the Company run and controlled by Rakesh Kumar Sharma. In terms of the Charge Sheet, dtd. 22/11/2018, the respondent has mentioned therein that the Company accounts were functioning properly till 31/3/2012. According to the petitioner, he was not in the employment of the accused Company after 16/3/2011, i.e. much before 31/3/2012. The petitioner claims to be a Company Secretary, who is also enrolled as a Lawyer. He has been attending the learned Trial Court physically since its reopening, though he has not been summoned by the learned Trial Court. This is in terms of the directions which have been passed by this Court in the bail petition filed by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that as per the Supplementary Charge Sheet, dtd. 19/3/2020, the petitioner has been named as a 'suspect' in the same, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure-P3. Further, as per the petitioner, it is evident from the perusal of the Charge Sheet that no evidence has comeforth against the petitioner to establish his involvement in the offences mentioned in the FIR and accordingly, he has not been cited as an accused. The grievance of the petitioner is that the act of the respondents of mentioning the petitioner as a suspect in the Supplementary Charge Sheet is illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to his legal rights and it is in this background that the petition stands filed, praying for the relief already mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that naming of the petitioner as a 'suspect' in the Police Report, filed under the provisions of Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that it is settled law that the trial is always of an accused and once the investigation has demonstrated that the petitioner is not an accused and he has not done anything so as to make him an accused in terms of the Sec. mentioned in the FIR, reflection of the name of the petitioner as a 'suspect' in the Charge Sheet is complete miscarriage of justice and is a travesty of justice and in case the FIR in issue is not ordered to be quashed against the petitioner, then the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Writ Petition No.3143 of 2009, titled Gyanchand Verma Versus Sudhakar B. Pujari and others, decided on 24/1/2011 and also in Criminal Writ Petition No.3143 of 2009, titled Gyanchand Verma Versus Sudhakar B. Pujari and others, decided on 21/4/2011, reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 904.