May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2All] Dr. Pradumn Singh V. State of U.P. & others 3
fabricated report, with a view to humiliate
and vex the petitioner has been lodged against
him. It is alleged that according to the
impugned F.I.R. itself, it is clear that the
entire money was paid through vouchers,
which were approved by the office bearers of
the committee of management itself.
6. Sri Indra Deo Pandit, in his turn, has
alleged that all the allegations in the F.I.R. are
against the Principal of the college and that he
has worked under his subordination as
Assistant Accountant and, was bound to obey
the directions of the Principal. It is further
alleged that he is not responsible for any
embezzlement as he himself had no power to
work independently and as such the
allegations are of no consequence against him.
He has also made certain allegations of
malafide against the management and has
assigned the reasons for his false implication
as a contempt petition was filed by him before
this court in which certain directions were
issued.
7. Sri Satish Chandra Misra, learned
counsel for the petitioners urged that the
allegations contained in the F.I.R. are nothing
but a conglomeration of calumny and
falsehood and, therefore, investigation on the
F.I.R. against the petitioners would be unwise.
It was also urged by him that the F.I.R. is the
product of the mala fide or lack of bona fide
on the part of the Secretary of the Committee
of management who for extraneous
considerations was impelled to lodge the
report. Both the submissions have been
repelled by the learned counsel for the first
informant as well as the State.
8. To begin with, it may be mentioned that
both the petitioners are involved in Case
Crime No. 345 of 1999 under Sections
408/419/420/467/468 and 471 I.P.C. P.S.
Kasiya, district Kushinagar. A bare reading of
the F.I.R. would indicate that prima facie, a
cognizable offence is made out against both
the accused persons who were directly
concerned with the handling of the accounts
of the institution. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has also not argued before this
court that from the averments made in the
F.I.R. a cognizable offence is not disclosed.
The only submission on behalf of the
petitioners is that the allegations contained in
the F.I.R. are false and, in any case, they are
the product of mala fide. Counter affidavits
brought on the record are indicative of the fact
that after the receipt of the audit report, it was
found that the petitioners have squandered
substantial money of the college, in question.
9. The gravamen of the charge against the
petitioners, therefore, is that in their capacity
as Principal and Assistant Accountant, they
have embezzled huge amount by withdrawing
the same on the basis of forged and fictitious
vouchers. It is well embedded and settled
proposition of law that the Court has to be
cautious and circumspect while exercising the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding.
Such power has to be exercised very sparingly
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The
apex court has taken the consistent view that
the Court should not, except in extraordinary
circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction to
quash the prosecution proceedings after they
have been launched. In the case of Rupam
Deol Bajaj V. Kunwar Pal Singh Gill-1995(6)
SCC-194, it was observed, that the Court will
not be justified in embarking upon the enquiry
as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the F.I.R or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whim or caprice. The classic exposition of
law is to be found in State of West Bengal V.
Swapna Kumar Guha – A.I.R. 1982SC-949 in
which it was laid down as follows:
“….the Court will not normally interfere
with an investigation into the case and will
permit investigation into the offence alleged
to be completed; if, however, the materials do
not disclose an offence, no investigation
should normally be permitted ……… Once an