The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2171 of 2019 Babaji Charan Beura …. Petitioner Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.03.2024 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. 3. The present application has been filed invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.907 of 2017, arising out of Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.106 of 2017, pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack. 4. The factual background leading to filing of the Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.106 of 2017, in gist, is that the Chief Engineer of Drainage, Gandarpur, Cuttack lodged a complaint before the I.I.C., Chauliaganj Police Station on 19.05.2017, inter alia, alleging that the present Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), // 2 // has unauthorizedly executed some work leading to unfruitful expenditure of Government money. Accordingly, the I.I.C. of the Chauliaganj Police Station was requested to investigate into the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid compliant, a formal F.I.R. was registered. Basing upon the aforesaid F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the Chauliaganj Police Station and eventually a charge sheet has been filed indicating the Petitioner’s name in the alleged crime. It further appears from the record that on the basis of the charge sheet and the statement of witnesses, the court below has taken cognizance vide order dated 15.11.2017 under Annexure-3 to the application for commission of offences under Sections 419/420 of the I.P.C. Being aggrieved by such initiation of proceeding and further continuation thereof, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application for quashing of the entire proceeding. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on the basis of the complaint received from the local public, had carried out certain civil construction work. He further contended that while carrying out such construction work, the Petitioner has followed the procedure. Although the work was executed by a contractor, however, such contractor was selected on the basis of a public tender. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that there is no allegation of any misappropriation of Government money against the present Petitioner. The only allegation against the Petitioner is that he has exceeded his authority and has permitted certain civil construction work which has led to unfruitful expenditure of Government money. 7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the further affidavit dated 11.01.2023 submitted that // 3 // pursuant an order passed by this Court in a pending writ application filed by the contractor for payment of his outstanding dues, this Court directed for inspection of the work and submission of a report before this Court. Pursuant to such direction of this Court, the Chief Engineer, Drainage, Gandarpur, Cuttack, vide his order dated 11.05.2020, constituted a Technical Committee consisting of several engineers. Such Technical Team inspected the work “Improvement of Bangalpur Drainage Cut” on 16.05.2020 to ascertain the status of the work. After inspection, the Committee has submitted a report. On perusal of the report, it has been annexed to the further affidavit of the Petitioner dated 11.01.2023, it appears that the Committee duly observed the work that has been completed the work in all respect as per layout given by the field staff in accordance with the approved drawing. The Committee had also cross measured the work linearly and cross checked at 06 points which tallied with the final measurement recorded by the field staff in their measurement book and the structures so built are found functional and in safe condition at present. Accordingly, the Technical Committee reported that the final bill amount which has been arrived at for Rs.32,13,961/- only based on detailed measurement recorded by the filed staff in the measurement book. Finally, the Committee has recommended that the Agency is liable to get the balance amount as is payable to such executing agency. 8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that on a plain reading of the F.I.R. lodged by the Chief Engineer of Drainage, Gandarpur, Cuttack, no case is made out against the present Petitioner even accepting the allegation made therein are correct. He further contended that there is no allegation that the Petitioner has misappropriated any Government money and that the Government money has not been utilized for the project which was undertaken while the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive // 4 // Engineer (Civil). In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the report of the Technical Committee that the work has been executed through the executing agency and such executing agency is entitled to the money he is to receive from the Government for such work. Therefore, it was contended that no case is made out against the Petitioner and, accordingly, the F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner and the order taking cognizance be quashed in better interest of justice. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party, on the other hand, contended that there are materials against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) had not taken the approval of the Chief Engineer of Drainage, Gandarpur, Cuttack while permitting the civil construction work to be carried out. However, it was not disputed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the work has not been completed as approved. 10. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further contended that in the event the Petitioner is not found guilty, then he should have faced trial and the trial court would have eventually acquitted the Petitioner. In other words, it was submitted that there is no necessity for the Petitioner to approach this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. as there are prima facie materials which reveals that the alleged offence had actually taken place and in the aforesaid factual basis, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for quashing of the criminal proceeding as has been prayed in the present application.. 11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the materials on record and further taking into // 5 // consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court observes that the F.I.R., which was lodged by the Chief Engineer of Drainage, Gandarpur, Cuttack on 19.05.2017, does not disclose that the Petitioner has misappropriated any Government money. The entire allegation revolves around a decision taken by the Petitioner while he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with regard to execution of the work of Bangalpur Drainage Cut. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that such work has not been completed. The only ground that has been taken by the prosecution in this case is that such a decision to construct the Bangalpur Drainage Cut is an unfruitful expenditure of Government money. 12. This Court on a careful consideration of the factual background of this case, is of the view that on the basis of aforesaid allegation, no criminal liability can be attributed to the Petitioner. In the event the Petitioner has exceeded his authority while approving the project, then it is open to the Government to proceed against the Petitioner departmentally. However, the same solely cannot be the basis to initiate a criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner. Therefore, by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 AIR 604, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgment for quashing of a criminal proceeding inasmuch as on a plain reading of the F.I.R. and accepting the allegation to be proved, no case is made out against the present Petitioner. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as the legal position and further considering the fact that no offence is made out on a plain reading of the F.I.R. even accepting the allegation to be proved, // 6 // this Court is of the considered view that the further continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and the same would not be continued for better interest of justice. 14. Accordingly, this Court allows the Criminal Misc. Case and the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide G.R. Case No.907 of 2017 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack stands quashed. The learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack or the Court in seisin over the matter shall on receipt of the copy of this order/production of the copy of this order, do the needful in this regard. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 19-Mar-2024 19:02:20