The Allahabad High Court has said that the ramifications of fraud by the court staff are far-reaching and detrimental to the justice system and erode the public trust in the judiciary. When court staff abuse their authority for personal gain, it compromises the integrity of judicial decisions and raises questions about the legitimacy of legal proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar heard the petition filed by Suresh Kumar Mishra.
The petitioner has approached the Court through the petition to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to quash the F.I.R dated 27.4.20223 bearing Case under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C, registered at Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, and further not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.
On examination of the F.I.R, it reveals that a written complaint was made to the S.H.O, P.S Sonbhadra by the petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant Clerk in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra- subsequently, the petitioner turned to be the main accused in the F.I.R- inter-alia stating, a list of 629 case registered under Motor Vehicles Act by the ARTO Mirzapur for various violations was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra for conducting the proceeding in accordance with the provision of Motor Vehicles Act.
As per the instructions from the Court, he matched the list of 629 cases with the fine register, receipt book and other records of the Court and found that 304 cases had not been dealt with by the Court and the Challan/fine receipts were found to be forged.
On further examination, in seven cases, clerical mistakes were observed; in the rest of the cases, it was revealed that a forgery had been committed in the original receipt, and the amount of the fine was found to be altered/modified clandestinely. In most cases, such forged receipts were issued on public holidays, during the pandemic, when the Court was in recess, or when the Presiding Officer was on leave.
On receipt of the written complaint by the petitioner, the police registered the impugned F.I.R and started the investigation.
The gist of the allegation is that while working as Senior Assistant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, from October, 2020 till March, 2023, the petitioner, in connivance with the staff and officers of the ARTO, released 304 vehicles against forged receipts, and caused massive loss to the government treasury by playing fraud upon the court proceedings.
The co-accused Prabhat Kumar Sharma, who was working under the supervision of the petitioner, was arrested on 13.12.2023 and on his statement role of the petitioner has surfaced. In the account of accused Prabhat Sharma through e-banking, phone-pe, and googlepe, numerous truck owners and Advocates have deposited a considerable amount to the extent of Rs 20 lacs.
It is further revealed that after depositing the cash in his account, it was withdrawn on the same day and handed over to the petitioner. The forged challan receipts used to release the vehicle by the office of ARTO were used as genuine and uploaded on the R.T.O website by the petitioner and his staff in collusion with the staff/employee of the ARTO office.
The Court observed that,
On examination of the record, it’s revealed that the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges levelled by Anil Kumar Singh, practising Advocate in District Court, Sonbhadra, on whose complaint the Administrative Judge, District Sonbhadra, directed the District Judge, Sonbhadra, to initiate inquiry against the petitioner.
Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate on 29.3.2023, resigned from his earlier statement dated 29.3.2023 and “not pressed” his complaint in his supplementary statement recorded on 27.4.2023.
The law is settled in this regard, and the Supreme Court has taken a consistent view in a series of judgments that it is beyond debate that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings. It is possible in disciplinary matters to establish charges against a delinquent official by a preponderance of probabilities and consequently terminate his services. But the same set of evidence may not be sufficient to take away his liberty under our criminal law jurisprudence. Such distinction between standards of proof amongst civil and criminal litigation is deliberate, given the differences in stakes, the power imbalance between the parties and the social costs of an erroneous decision. Thus, in a disciplinary enquiry, strict rules of evidence and procedure of a criminal trial are inapplicable, like, statements made before enquiry officers can be relied upon in certain instances.
The Court said that,
We have gone through the entire materials placed before us scrupulously, but we are not persuaded to hold that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R and the material collected during the investigation lacks bonafide making the entire proceedings vitiated under law. The petitioner is on the run, and the police are conducting raids at the possible hide-outs of the petitioner. Such large-scale organized fraud can’t be executed without the active connivance of the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shonbhadra.
As the investigation is at the pre-mature stage and the role of the petitioner has surfaced as a kingpin in executing the crime, therefore, it’s not possible to anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of malate ideas on the material at present available. Therefore, we are unable to see any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, there are serious allegations which have to be weighed after the evidence is collected. It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal investigation, if otherwise justifiable, does not become vitiated on account of the departmental inquiry.
In the backdrop of the material collected by the Investigating Officer qua petitioner, we are not persuaded to hold that the investigation is manifestly attended with malafide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. At this stage, we cannot embark upon a roving inquiry as to the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R, and the extraordinary and inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act to its whim or caprice.
The Court further observed that reverting to the materials placed before us, which surfaced during the investigation, in our considered opinion, the allegations against the petitioner do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of F.I.R and the investigation thereon, the case does not fall under any of the categories of the cases formulated in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) calling for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to the High Court to quash the F.I.R itself.
As the petitioner is not cooperating with the Investigating Officer, the police are conducting raids on his hide-outs; there is serious apprehension to the police that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses to be conversant with the proceedings of the criminal case, as had worked in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and presently working/posted as Central Nazir in District Court, Sonbhadra; therefore, the Court declined the prayer for a stay on arrest.
The Court noted that prima-facie, the allegations are serious, and the potential accused are resourceful. Therefore, a thorough and unbiased investigation shall be conducted without being influenced by external influences for extraneous reasons. The I.G Police, Varanasi Zone shall supervise the overall investigation, and the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra in coordination with DIG Police, Mirzapur Range shall supervise the day-to-day investigation.
The Court allowed the petition with the direction to complete the investigation at the earliest. Furthermore, the Court directed that the I.G Police, Varanasi Zone shall ensure that the Investigating Officer avails all available scientific and forensic assistance in collecting evidence, as permissible under law. If allegations of corruption and criminal breach of trust by a government servant emerge during the investigation, all relevant aspects shall be thoroughly examined by the police.