WPCRL/1464/2022 of SHAMA PARVEEN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1464 of 2022

Shama Parveen and another

………. Petitioners

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

......Respondents

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the writ applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the caveator.

-----------

Judgementdated: 01.08.2022

Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order.

1.The petitioners in this case are husband and wife, have prayed to quash the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 3 before the Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Gang Nahar, District Haridwar, alleging serious irregularities by the Village Pradhan i.e. petitioner no. 1, who happens to be wife of the petitioner no.2, of the MANREGA fund. As result of which, the FIR has been registered by the Police concerned against them at PS concerned under Sections 409, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as ‘IPC’).

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner in developing the case of the petitioner would argue that the respondent no.3 i.e. the complainant herein, approached the Minority Commission, Uttarakhand. The Minority Commission deputed Committee to enquire into the same. On the basis of the inquiry, the Minority Commission advised the respondent no. 3 to file an FIR. It is also borne out from the record that the Minority Commission through its Secretary has written letter to the concerned Police Station to register an FIR by the respondent no.3. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the Minority Commission

does not have jurisdiction to direct for registration of the FIR, and therefore, the FIR should be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that as per the report submitted by three Member Committee, serious irregularities in the MANREGA fund was found, and therefore, the Minority Commission did not take any decision itself but directed the respondent no.2 to register an FIR. When it comes to the knowledge of the respondent/Minority Commission, the FIR has not been registered,

the Minority Commission advised the Police to register the FIR. It is born out from the record that the Uttarakhand Minority Commission has

not filed any FIR itself. It has only paved the way to respondent no.2 to file an FIR.

4.The second contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel that the respondent no. 3 has no locus standi to file the FIR in view of the fact that he was not an injured or suffered any loss because of the alleged commission of the crime. It is settled principle of law that any person having knowledge about the commission of cognizable crime can file an FIR, even if he is not injured in that case. counsel that the respondent no. 3 has no locus standi to file the FIR in view of the fact that he was not an injured or suffered any loss because of the alleged commission of the crime. It is settled principle of law that any person having knowledge about the commission of cognizable crime can file an FIR, even if he is not injured in that case.

5.In that view of the matter, learned counsel’s argument that the respondent no. 3 cannot file an FIR as he has no locus standi is not an acceptable augment, even to issue notice to the respondents. Furthermore, it is also borne out from the record that the materials available on record reveals that, prima facie an offence under Sections 409, 420 and 506 IPC, are made out in this case. argument that the respondent no. 3 cannot file an FIR as he has no locus standi is not an acceptable augment, even to issue notice to the respondents. Furthermore, it is also borne out from the record that the materials available on record reveals that, prima facie an offence under Sections 409, 420 and 506 IPC, are made out in this case.

6.This Court is of the opinion that as far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the Investigating Officer should examine whether the offence under Section 109 or Section 120B IPC, or both, should be included to expand the scope of the investigation. petitioner no.2 is concerned, the Investigating Officer should examine whether the offence under Section 109 or Section 120B IPC, or both, should be included to expand the scope of the investigation.

7.In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this case does not comes within the purview of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and Neeharika opinion that this case does not comes within the purview of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315, where the FIR should be quashed. Prima Facie, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need even to issue notice to the respondent.

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit in limine.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)

(Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rule)

Kaushal