CRL.M.C./2184/2021 of AJIT KUMAR Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Signature Not Verified

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%Judgment delivered on: 05.12.2024

+CRL.M.C. 2184/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14709/2021

AJIT KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.MeenalDuggalandMr.SrikantSingh, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SIAkash Deep PS Kotwali

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

1.The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIRNo.138/2012 under Sections 392/411/34 IPC registered at PS Kotwali.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was registered onthe statement of Sh. Pramod Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Biru Yadav R/o ShashtriPark, Delhi alleging therein that accused Pramod Kumar S/o Dinesh Chandalongwith his associates snatched five packets containing manik stones fromhim. The complainant apprehended one accused i.e. Pramod Kumar on thespot alongwith one packet of manik stones but his associates ran away fromthe spot with four packets.

3.During investigation, one of the accused Gopal disclosed that he gavetwo packets of manik stone to the petitioner who was posted as BeatConstable at PS Kotwali through Inderjeet Singh. Later-on, one Sh. Rishi

Signature Not Verified

Verma S/o Sh. Rajender Verma R/o Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi cameto the police station on 06.07.2012 and handed over one packet with manikstone weighing 149 gms. He stated that the petitioner gave the said packet tohim about 10-12 days ago and asked him to keep it with the assurance thathe would collect the same within 2-3 hours but he had not collected it. Thisled to the registration of aforesaid FIR.

4.It is not in dispute that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, theallegations against him are only under Sections 411/34 IPC.

5.Later on, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against thepresent petitioner. The departmental enquiry was initially entrusted toInspector Neeraj Kumar and subsequently transferred to various otherofficers. Then, the departmental enquiry was marked to Inspector SajjanSingh vide order number 284-287/HAP Br./6th Bn. DAP, dated 02.02.2016,who prepared the summary of allegations, list of witnesses and list ofdocuments, which were served upon the present petitioner.

6.The petitioner did not admit the allegation and preferred to face theenquiry.Eventually, the departmental enquiry was marked to InspectorGajraj Singh, who concluded the same after observing all usual formalitiesand submitted his findings concluding therein that the charge framed againstthe petitioner is not proved.

7.The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the findings of theEnquiry Officer and issued Disagreement Note and the same alongwith acopy of findings, were delivered to the petitioner vide office U.O. No.682/HAP Br./6[th]Bn. DAP dated 01.03.2018 for submission of his writtenrepresentation/reply, if any, against the Disagreement Note within period

Signature Not Verified

of 15 days from the date of its receipt.

8.The petitioner received the Disagreement Note alongwith the copy offindings, on 05.03.2018 and submitted his written representation within thestipulated period. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 06.04.2018agreed with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and exonerated thepresent petitioner from the charges levelled against him in the departmentalenquiry and directed the departmental enquiry to be filed.

9.Mr. Viraj R. Datar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner submits that the charge in the departmental enquiry as well asthe charge in the present case are identical and premised on the same set offacts. He submits that even the witness cited in the departmental enquiryand the witness cited in the present criminal case for proving the chargeunder sections 411/34 IPC against the present petitioner, is the same. Tobuttress the contention, he has invited attention of the court to the list ofwitnesses examined in the departmental enquiry. Mr. Datar has also handedover the list of witnesses which is part of the chargesheet filed by the policein the present case under Section 173 CrPC.

10.He submits that since the departmental enquiry eventually culminatedinto an order of exoneration, therefore, the present FIR ought to be quashed.Elaborating on his submission, he further submits that since the standard ofproof in criminal case is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higher than‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proof that is required to beshown in the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, no useful purpose will beserved in prosecuting the criminal proceedings when the lower threshold of‘preponderance of probability’ has not been met in the departmental

Signature Not Verified

proceedings.

11.In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision ofHon’ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. DeputySuperintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636, as wellas, decision of this Court in Subhash Sharma vs. Govt of NCT, Delhi &Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3762.

12.I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as, learned APP for the State and have perused the record.13.The short question which arises for the consideration of this Court inthe present case is whether the proceedings arising out of FIR No.138/2012,whicharepremisedonidenticalallegationsonwhichdisciplinaryproceedings were initiated against the present petitioner, are liable to bequashed once the petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinaryproceedings.

14.To appreciate the controversy involved in the present petition it isimperative to examine the charge framed in the criminal case, as well as, thecharge in the departmental proceedings in juxtaposition, which are as under:

Signature Not Verified

15.A comparative reading of the charges levelled against the presentpetitioner in the departmental proceedings, as well as, the charge framed inthe criminal proceedings, makes it is evident that they are essentially thesame viz.,- the petitioner had retained some part of the stolen property

Signature Not Verified

(packet of manik stone) after receiving the same from one of the co-accused.16.A perusal of the list of witnesses, which forms part of the charge-sheet filed by the police under section 173 CrPC, shows that the prosecutionhas cited Rishi Verma as well as Inderjeet Singh as relevant witnessesinsofar as allegations against the present petitioner are concerned. Thisposition is also affirmed by the learned APP, on instructions from the IOwho is present in the court. In the departmental enquiry, the department hadexamined various witnesses including main witness Rishi Verma as PW3. Itis petitioner who examined witness Inderjeet Singh as DW1, who has beencited as witness by the prosecution in the criminal case.Thus, the mainwitnesses cited by the prosecution in the criminal case to prove theallegations against the present petitioner, were examined in the departmentalenquiry as well.

17.Undisputedly, the Enquiry Officer, after sifting the relevant evidenceon record, returned finding that the charges levelled against the presentpetitioner have not been proved. The relevant part of the finding of theEnquiry Officer reads thus:

“DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE

During the course of enquiry, I have examined sixProsecution Witnesses in support of the allegation levelledagainst Ct. Ajeet Kumar No.3951/DAP. All the witnesses wererelevant, reliable and independent who produced various kindof record connected to this Departmental Enquiry. PW-1 wasa formal witness who produced the documentary evidence(posting of delinquent in P.S. Kotwali at the time of incident on07/06/12). PW-2 was also formal witness and just produceddocumentary evidence i.e. Copy of FIR No. 138, dt. 07/06/12u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, North Distt., Delhi and

Signature Not Verified

arrest of delinquent in that case. PW-3 was very importantand main witness in this matter. He proved that the delinquentgave him packet of Manik at his shop saying he found it lyingthere in the market and asked him to keep it with him andenquire if, it belongs to somebody. But the delinquent did notcame back to take it. This PW stated that he deposited thatpacket in PS Kotwali when the delinquent did not come tocollect it. PW-4 proved that case of snatching of packets ofManik was got registered at P.S. Kotwali vide FIR No. 138/12,one accused Pramod was got arrested in that case, RishiVerma (PW-3) deposited packet of Manik in police stationand told that the delinquent had given it to him for keeping itwith him, seizure memo was prepared reg. that packet ofManik and Rishi Verma signed on it, the delinquent gotanticipatory bail and was formally arrested in the above saidcase. PW-5 proved that the delinquent was suspended in theabove mentioned matter. PW-6 proved the incident of dt.07/06/12.All the above 6 PWs were relevant, reliable andindependent and their testimony has lot of weight in thisdepartmental enquiry. PWs-1, 2 and 5 were formal witnessesand just produced documentary evidence. PW-3 was the mainwitness this matter. He crystal clearly stated that on one dayin June-2012, the delinquent came to his shop in the eveningand handed one white colour packet to him saying he hasfound it lying in the market. He then asked him to keep itwith him and enquire from the market if it belongs tosomebody. But he did not came back to collect the packetafter that day. Here it is very clear that the delinquent founda packet lying on the road and very selflessly took it to thisPW and asked him to verify if it belongs to somebody. He hasdone no wrong here. Though he did not go to collect thatpacket or even did not enquire about it later on but it doesnot prove he has any criminal intention. It was simplething and may be possible it might have slipped from hismind. This PW, during cross examination, stated that when

Signature Not Verified

the delinquent gave him that packet it showed his honesty.This PW also replied during cross examination that he hadnever asked/contacted the delinquent to take back that packet.Even this PW gave wrong answer during cross examinationthat no Seizure Memo was prepared reg. the packet he handedover to SHO Tyagi Ji of P.S. Kotwali and he even denied tohave signed on any Seizure Memo. Why he told this white lie?The reason is only best known to him. From the statement ofPW-4 it is clear that the Hon'ble Court granted anticipatorybail to delinquent and he was arrested formally only. Noevidence has surfaced against the delinquent during thecourse of enquiry. This shows that there is no evidenceagainst the delinquent in this case and he was falselyimplicated by the police to the reason only best known tothem.

The statements of DWs also could not be taken out ofaccount. DW-1 proved that nobody gave him any packet ofManik to be delivered to Ct. Ajeet. He also denied that heknows any Gopal in Chandni Chowk. He also deposed that onepolice officer wrote something on paper and got hissignature on it. DW-2 proved that he had not given any packetto Sardar Inderjeet Singh (DW-1). He also deposed that hewas beaten in the police station and police officer got hissignature on paper on which something was written already.He was semi literate hence, he could not read it. DW-3, whowas also posted in P .S. K.otwali at the time of incident,proved that one Ct. Shokeen of P .S. K.otwali contacted himand told him that SHO has asked him to arrange some Maniks.He also showed him some sample and told him that the SHOhad ordered to arrange the same type of Maniks. This DWtook Ct. Shokeen to Jewellery Shop from where Ct. Shokeenbought about 250 grams Maniks costing about Rs. 35000/-.(Copy of Bill is attached herewith for ready reference). TheDWs are not related to or linked to the delinquent in anyway. Hence, there is hardly any chance that they are tutored.No PW supported the prosecution case and in theirstatementsneverutteredasinglewordagainstthe

Signature Not Verified

delinquent.

CONCLUSION:

AftercarefullygoingthroughthetestimonyofProsecution Witnesses and other evidence/material adducedduring the course of enquiry it is not proved that thedelinquentCt.AjeetKumarNo.3951/DAP,PISNo.28892362 had done any criminal act. Hence, the chargeleveled against him is not proved.”

(emphasis supplied)

18.Likewise, the order of the disciplinary authority had also recorded afinding that no charge levelled against the petitioner in the departmentalinquiry has been proved. Thus, the disciplinary authority concurred with theconclusion of the Enquiry Officer to exonerate the present petitioner. Therelevant part of the order of the disciplinary authority exonerating thepresent petitioner reads thus:

“I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O,Statements of witnesses, written representation of delinquentin response to disagreement note and other material broughton D.E file. The delinquent was also heard in O.R. on03.04.20187. During the course of enquiry 06 PWs in supportof the allegations leveled against delinquent Const. have beenexamined. PW-1, 2 & 5 were formal witnesses and justproduced documentary evidence. PW-3 was the main witnessin this matter. He crystal clearly stated that on one day inJune 2012, the delinquent came to his shop in the eveningand handed over one white colour packet to him by sayingthat he has found it lying in the market. He then asked himto keep it with him and enquire from the market if it belongsto somebody. But he did not came back to collect the sameafter that day. It is very clear here that the delinquent founda packet lying on the road and very selflessly took it to thisPW and asked him to verify if it belongs to somebody. He hasdone nothing wrong here. Though, he did not go to collect

Signature Not Verified

the packet or even did not enquire about it later on, but itdoes not prove that he has any criminal intention. It was asimple thing and may be possible it might have slipped fromhis mind. This PW during the cross examination stated thatwhen the delinquent gave him that packet it showed hishonesty. This PW also replied during cross examination thathe had never asked/contacted the delinquent to take backthat packet. Further, from the statement of PW-4, it is clearthat the Hon'ble Court granted anticipatory bail to delinquentand he was arrested formally only. No evidence has surfacedagainst the delinquentduring the course ofenquiry.Moreover, the statement of DWs also could not be taken outof account. DW-1 proved that nobody gave him any packet ofManik to be delivered to delinquent Const. Ajeet Kumar. Healso denied that he knows any Gopal in Chandni Chowk. Healso deposed that one police officer wrote something on apaper and got his signature on it. DW-2 proved that he notgiven any packet of Manik to Sardar Inderjeet Singh (DW-1). He also stated that one police officer got his signature ona paper on which something was already written.

Keepinginviewofabovecaptionedfactsandcircumstances as well as considering the findings of E.O,representation of delinquent Const. against the disagreementnote, it is proved that there is nothing adverse noticed againstConst.AjeetKumar,No.3951/DAPduringtheD.Eproceeding. Therefore, I, Satyavir Katara, Dy. Commissionerof Police, 6th Bn. DAP, Delhi agreeing with the conclusionof Enquiry Officer exonerate Const. Ajeet Kumar, NO.3951/DAP from the charge leveled against him in thedepartmental enquiry and the instant DE is hereby filed.However, the suspension period will be decided after thefinalization of criminal case pending against him.”

(emphasis supplied)

19.Since, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been exonerated in thedisciplinary proceedings from the charge which is essentially the same as

Signature Not Verified

charge framed in the present case, therefore, the question that needs to beaddressed is as to whether the present FIR can be quashed on the basis of theexoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings.

20.The answer is not far to seek. This Court in Subhash Sharma vs.Govt of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3762 relying on variousdecisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar,1996 (9) SCC 1; Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11SCC 130 and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, EOW, CBI and Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636, has taken view that if anaccused has been exonerated and held innocent in the departmentalproceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, thenthe criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot bepermitted to continue. The justification for the same is that the standard ofproof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higher than‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proof required in disciplinaryproceedings. In case the lower threshold could not be met in the disciplinaryproceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedingswhere the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is higher. Therelevant paras of Subhash Sharma (supra) reads thus:

“20. In P.S. Rajya (supra), the appellant therein was exoneratedof all the charges in the departmental inquiry conducted by theCentral Vigilance Commission and the conclusion of exonerationwas concurred by the Union Public Service Commission whichled to the passing of final orders by the President in favour of theappellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Courtunder Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of thecharge, the High Court dismissed the petition. The challenge wastaken to the Supreme Court. In the given factual backdrop, the

Signature Not Verified

Hon’ble Supreme Court formulated the following question inparagraph 3 of the judgment, which reads as under:

“3. The short question that arises for our consideration inthis appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuingthe prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) readwith Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge theappellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings inthe light of report submitted by the Central VigilanceCommission and concurred by the Union Public ServiceCommission.”...

21. Then the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the aboveformulated question and quashed the criminal proceedings byobserving thus:

“17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counselfor the respondent could not but accept the position that thestandard of proof required to establish the guilt in criminalcase is far higher than the standard of proof required toestablish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He alsoaccepted that inthepresentcase,the chargein thedepartmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings isone and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered inthe departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. Onthese premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficultyin accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge whichis identical could not be established in departmentalproceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in thereports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is therefurthertoproceedagainsttheappellantincriminalproceedings……

xxxxxxxxxxxx

23.Even though all these facts including the Report of theCentral Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice ofthe High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took view that

Signature Not Verified

the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedingsandtheReportoftheCentralVigilanceCommission,exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmentalproceedings would not conclude the criminal case against theappellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, onthe peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedingsinitiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore,we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court asstated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996[1]for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugnedcriminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.”

22. In Lokesh Kumar Jain (supra), an FIR was registeredagainst the appellant therein alleging financial irregularities andmisappropriation of Rs.4,39,617/-. In departmental proceedingswith identical charges, the appellant was exonerated on theground that it was not clear as to who received the payments forvarious transactions as the original and carbon copies of billswere not available. In the criminal case, the police also maderepeated oral requests and statutory notices under Section 91CrPC but the department of the appellant could not provide therequisiteincriminatingdocuments.Thepolice,therefore,submitted the final closure report to the Magistrate after fivemonths of lodging of FIR. But the Magistrate upon submission ofthe complainant that he is ready to cooperate with the police andprocure requisite documents, directed re-investigation underSection156(3)CrPC.Thereafter,investigationremainedpending for 12-13 years inspite of the appellant making requestto the police authorities to complete the investigation. Theappellant move the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seekingto quash the FIR lodged against him, but the High Courtdeclined to quash the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowedthe appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings. Relying uponthe decision of PS Rajya (supra), it was observed as under:

“23. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, this Court noticed that the

1Vide order dated 27.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reserving the reasons to begiven later, which were given vide judgment in P.S. Rajya (supra)

appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding inthe light of report of the Central Vigilance Commission andconcurred by the Union Public Service Commission. Thecriminal case was pending since long, in spite of the fact thatthe appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedingfor same charge.

24. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that ifthe charges which are identical could not be established in thedepartmental proceedings, one wonders what is there furtherto proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings wherestandard of proof required to establish the guilt is far higherthan the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in thedepartmental proceedings.

25.Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and forthe reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that thepresent case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where theHigh Court should have exercised its power under Section 482CrPC.Itisnotdisputedbytherespondentthatthedepartmental proceeding was initiated against the appellantwith regard to identical charges made in the FIR……

28. ……..Considering the fact that delay in the present case iscaused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of aspeedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of theConstitution is thereby violated and as the appellant hasalready been exonerated in the departmental proceedings foridentical charges, keeping the case pending against theappellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deservesto be quashed.”

[Emphasis supplied]

23. In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.,[2]the question arose that after the exoneration of the appellant inthe adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign

2(2011) 3 SCC 581

Signature Not Verified

Exchange Regulation Act, whether criminal prosecution on thesame set of facts and circumstances can be allowed to becontinued. In this factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtobserved as under:

“26. We may observe that the standard of proof in criminalcaseismuchhigherthanthatoftheadjudicationproceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been ableto prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and theappellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. Theappellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, inour opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudicationproceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminalcase. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench hadnot considered the effect of finding of fact in civil case overthe criminal cases and that will be evident from the followingpassage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27)

“… I must, however, say that in answering the question, Ihave only referred to civil cases where the actions are inpersonam and not those where the proceedings or actionsare in rem. Whether finding of fact arrived at in suchproceedings or actions would be relevant in criminalcases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case.Whenthatquestionarisesfordetermination,theprovisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have tobe carefully examined.”

xxxxxxxxxxxx

38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions canbroadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecutioncan be launched simultaneously;can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessarybefore initiating criminal prosecution;before initiating criminal prosecution;

Signature Not Verified

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedingsare independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution inthe adjudication proceedings is not binding on theproceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v)AdjudicationproceedingsbytheEnforcementDirectorate is not prosecution by competent court oflaw to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of theConstitution or Section 300 of the Code of CriminalProcedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favourof the person facing trial for identical violation willdepend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration inadjudication proceedings is on technical ground and noton merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits wherethe allegation is found to be not sustainable at all andthe person held innocent, criminal prosecution on thesame set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowedto continue, the underlying principle being the higherstandard of proof in criminal cases.

xxxx

39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judgeas to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedingsas well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and theexoneration of the person concerned in the adjudicationproceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that thereis no contravention of the provisions of the Act in theadjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concernedshall be an abuse of the process of the court.”

[Emphasis supplied]

24. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) also, the Hon’bleSupreme Court relying upon the report of the Central VigilanceCommission (“CVC”) whereby the CVC refused to give sanction

Signature Not Verified

for prosecution of the appellant opining that prima facie chargesdo not seem to be established against the appellant, observedthat chances of conviction in criminal trial involving the samefacts appear to be bleak and accordingly, set aside the judgmentof the High Court and that of the Special Judge whereby they hadobserved that there was no need for sanction under Section 197CrPC and proceeded against the petitioner. For making suchobservations the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to para 38(vii)of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The relevant observation of theCourt reads thus:

“14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and ifthe High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then ona reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellantshould have been exonerated.

15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case,it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-12-2011, the chances of conviction in criminal trial involvingthe same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside thejudgment [AshooSurendranath Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCCOnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court and that of the SpecialJudge and discharge the appellant from the offences under thePenal Code.”

[Emphasis supplied]

25. At this stage the guidelines laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, relating to the exercise of inherent power underSection 482 CrPC for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedingsemanating therefrom could advantageously be referred to,wherein the Court observed as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the variousrelevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of theprinciples of law enunciated by this Court in series ofdecisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary powerunder Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of

Signature Not Verified

the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, wegive the following categories of cases by way of illustrationwherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuseof the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexibleguidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list ofmyriad kinds of cases wherein such power should beexercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first informationreport or the complaint, even if they are taken at theirface value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out case againstthe accused.report or the complaint, even if they are taken at theirface value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out case againstthe accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information reportand other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do notdisclose cognizable offence, justifying an investigationby police officers under Section 156(1) of the Codeexcept under an order of Magistrate within the purviewof Section 155(2) of the Code.and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do notdisclose cognizable offence, justifying an investigationby police officers under Section 156(1) of the Codeexcept under an order of Magistrate within the purviewof Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in theFIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supportof the same do not disclose the commission of anyoffence and make out case against the accused.FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supportof the same do not disclose the commission of anyoffence and make out case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizableoffence, no investigation is permitted by police officerwithout an order of Magistrate as contemplated underSection 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaintare so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis ofwhich no prudent person can ever reach justconclusionthatthereissufficientgroundforproceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in anyof the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

Signature Not Verified

whichacriminalproceedingisinstituted) totheinstitution and continuance of the proceedings and/orwhere there is specific provision in the Code or theconcerned Act, providing efficacious redress for thegrievance of the aggrieved party.(7) Where criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwithmalafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciouslyinstitutedwithanulteriormotiveforwreaking vengeance on the accused and with view tospite him due to private and personal grudge.”

[Emphasis supplied]

26. The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has beenexonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedingsafter the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, thenthe criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegationscannot be permitted to continue. The reasoning for this recoursearticulated in above decisions is that the standard of proof incriminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higherthan ‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proofrequired in disciplinary proceedings. In case the lower thresholdcould not be met in the disciplinary proceeding, there is nopurpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where thestandard of proof required to establish the guilt is higher.”

20.As the reliability and genuineness of the allegations against thepetitioner have already been tested during the disciplinary proceedings andthe petitioner has been found to be innocent and accordingly, exoneratedfrom such allegations, therefore, this Court, in view of the above discussionis of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served incontinuing the present criminal proceeding. Thus, the present case is fitcase which calls for the quashing of the FIR in question.

21.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.138/2012 under

Signature Not Verified

Sections 392/411/34 IPC registered at PS Kotwali alongwith all otherproceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner.

22.The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

23.Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

DECEMBER 5, 2024N.S.ASWAL