The Allahabad High Court has said that a person’s exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot be the basis for quashing the criminal case while dismissing an application.
A single-judge bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Subhan Ali.
The Application U/S 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant Subhan Ali with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, Most respectfully prayed that it may kindly be pleased to quash the Special Case CBI Vs Mohan Singh & others along with cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2020, arising out of Case under section 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 66 Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station- Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption)(CBI) Court Ghaziabad and entire proceedings carried out pursuant thereto, to the extent applicant is concerned.
It is, further prayed that the Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further criminal proceedings of Special Case CBI Vs Mohan Singh & others along with cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2020 to the extent applicant is concerned, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) (CBI) Court Ghaziabad, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, and/or may pass such other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
The First Information Report of the case was lodged on the basis of a complaint dated 13.01.2017 received from R.K Srivastava on 16.01.2017 with the subject of fraudulent withdrawal of funds from accounts maintained in the Post Office. The accused named therein were Rajiv Shankar, the then Sub-Postmaster, Govindpuri (Modinagar), Ghaziabad, Mohan Singh, the then Postal Agent, Head Post Office, District Ghaziabad, Deepak Garg, a private person and other unknown persons.
The allegations in the FIR are that during 2015, Ghaziabad Head Post Office was under the process of migration from Sanchay Post Offline software to Finacle online software. Before migration, 61 already closed accounts being 49-RD accounts and 12 MIS accounts were reopened at Ghaziabad Head Office on different dates by making fake deposit entries by the Data Entry person. The said accounts were closed at Ghaziabad Head Office and Govindpuri Sub Office on different dates on the basis of fake and forged documents and the money which was transferred in the said accounts, was fraudulently withdrawn from the said closed accounts.
The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 25.10.2020 was filed by the C.B.I against 08 persons including the applicant under Sections 120B, r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 I.T Act, 2000 and substantive offence, on which the court of Special Judge (C.B.I), Ghaziabad by order dated 18.12.2020 took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. A departmental inquiry against the applicant was also taken up by the Department which concluded vide order dated 22.11.2023 in which the applicant was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him.
The charge in the matter was framed by the trial court concerned against the accused persons vide its order dated 11.11.2021. Subsequent to which the trial in the matter has started and as of now four prosecution witnesses have been examined. The Application U/S 482 CrPC has thus been filed before the Court with the above mentioned prayers.
Counsel for the applicant made a solitary submission that since the applicant has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings initiated against him for the same charges vide the order dated 22.11.2023 the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed since the same also relate to identical charges.
Per contra, counsel for the Union of India/opposite party no 1 and the C.B.I/opposite party no 3 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the applicant is named accused in the matter. Charge sheet against him has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance. Subsequent to it charges were framed and the trial in the matter is under progress in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined.
It is further submitted that in so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, exoneration of the applicant was on the ground that violation of rules against him in the memorandum of charge were either wrong or not applicable and thus the charge was held not proved. He was thus exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
It is also submitted that departmental inquiry did not proceed on merits but culminated with the finding that the charges are either wrong or not applicable which cannot be considered as an order on its own merits and by considering the matter in detail.
Counsel has further submitted that the trial in the matter is under progress since charge has been framed and four prosecution witnesses have been examined and now reverting back to the cognizance and summoning order for its quashing is not permissible.
It is submitted that once charge has been framed, the accused cannot be discharged and he can only be acquitted after trial.
“After having heard counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that grounds and arguments as pleaded in the case are that the applicant is an accused in the matter and has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding and as such criminal proceedings should be quashed.
A perusal of the order passed in the departmental proceeding goes to show that the same culminated with the finding that the charges were either wrong or not applicable and hence, charge was held to be not proved and thus, he was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. The exoneration was not an honourable exoneration after full fledged inquiry on merits.
Even be that as it may, the exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot be the basis for quashing a criminal case. A criminal case has to be proceeded on the basis of evidence adduced in it. The same has to be tested by the trial court and then a judgement has to be pronounced on the basis of evidence adduced and produced before it. Merely exoneration in departmental proceeding cannot knock-out a criminal case.
More so, in the case after cognizance and summoning, charge has been framed and the trial has started in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined. At this stage terminating the criminal proceeding and the entire trial cannot be justified, in any manner,” the Court observed while dismissing the application.