High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1784/2019dismissed

Jagmohan Sharma v. State Of Haryana

2026-02-17Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi23 pages

! "# $ %& '

(

)* %+ "%&%,&- . &* '

(

)* %+ /0%)$1&2 '

(

3 4 '

5 5 5

$%& 5 5

")0 ' ! ()*+

+ ,!-./ *0120 *011! 143 (*0 (43

(4) (31 1*05*1).

+ 6 $!

91:

02 1* *01) 7 8!

9*: " & & ! (43 (4) (31 144 1*05.

+ );1* +

* '& -. 8!

91: & 9 ! 9

Application for conducting an inquiry into the forgery and manipulating tempering the ACR of applicant and for registration of FIR against the culprits. R/Sir, The applicant submits as under: 1) That the applicant joined service as a 'Forest Ranger' on 07.04.1981 and further was promoted as Haryana Forest Service on 09.07.1999 on the basis of his hard work and having unblemished service record, dedication and scarification to protect the Forest Wealth from "destruction" and "annihilation" without any fear and greed. 2) That according to Punjab Govt. letter No. 1265AS1564/2377 dated 17.01.64 read with Haryana Govt. letter No.3130535571 dated 21.05.1971 and it is settled law that the facts of the confidential report should have brought to the notice of delinquent person during the year of the report and since same should have been recorded with the report itself. In absence of such information or notice, that person is deem to be having good service record.

3) That Govt. of India vide letter No.1015/2010 ASI dated 07.10.10 has directed that Govt. of Haryana vide letter above stated to submit the names of the officers (State Forest Service) Haryana Cadre for promotion to IFS for the year of 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the applicant was hope full that his name will be included in the list of these officers as his all the ACR were very good/Excellent, but some vested interest were not happy with the promotion to the rank of IFS Haryana Cadre) of the applicant and when confidential report of the applicant was in custody of Superintendent for Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana (Forest) for the period 01.04.2009 to 14.07.2009 and someone in the office fraudulently with mala fide intension and to cause wrongful loss to the applicant, forged and manipulated the ACR of the

applicant and word "I agree, which was written by Sh. Jeet Ram, IFS (Rtd) in the ACR of applicant (reviewing authority added words "up to some extent but he is dishonest". 4) That the applicant was shocked to receive the report from the office of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Forest Department vide Memo No.2995ft5III5 2011/1182 dated 01.02.2011 in regard of his ACR and then the applicants served a legal notice u/s 80 CPC to Sh. Jeet Ram, IFS (Rtd) and Sh. Jeet Ram, IFS (Rtd) replied in response of this legal notice that he had written only "I agree" and the rest of the word are not in his hand writing and somebody else has added these words later on.

5) That the applicant under RTI requested the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana for supply of copy of his ACR which was provided to the applicant and applicant sent the certified copy of ACR to Dr. JassyAnand, Forensic Expert for comparison and the expert prepared his report with photo copy and found that in the ACR column of remarks of reviewing authority dated 28.04.2010 there is an addition I the line "1 agree upto the extent but he is dishonest is not in one hand and differ with I agree". 6) That the ACR of the applicant was forged and tempered when the name of HFS officers were sent for promotion to the post of IFS (7 nos posts of Haryana cadre) and the candidates who were junior in seniority to the applicant who were at Sr. No. 8 to 11 in the list will fraudulently in collusion with Suptt.

/ some junior official in the office of Superintendent for Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Forest Department, Sector517, New Mini Sectt., Chandigarh.

my promotion to the post of IFS and forged the official record to destroy the future of applicant, which is a heinous crime should be prosecuted as per law. Applicant SD Satyavir Singh Sheoran.

" ! & ! ! 1327*:+

+ "!& ' 7+99*(()09 *01): ,! -. " " & " " 1) 1* *01)" &

& '

(

" 9 ! 02 1* *01)7 8!

9*:

' -.7 8!

91: 7 8!

9*: !

' ! & 04 !

9 ! <

!! 141+

+ & ! -." !& ! / " ,!"

> .- - !

11 " ' "

/ 6 "

/ ' & + " / 4"

? ! @ "!&!

& # $ ! 1A3+

+ +!

$ > !

-.7 8!

91: 8!

9*:&,!

' ! 9 9 ! 9 ! " !

" & ""

+ " & 9"

< =! 9+ $ ' < =! 9+ $ & " & +

/" !

" !

< =! + & &<

? - % !& '!

! 1A3+

+ " ,! & !

! . ! 9 ! ' & &

)

. !

' ,!-.& " B!C

! ! 9 D102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chaper XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a serious of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be excercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non5cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

'@& ! +!

!B! ! ,! ! & ,!-. ! 1A25/

! !,! ! & B! !!

' B! ! 9

.C"# $% $ & ''() * * %+% )',!@& ! +!

! 9

6. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a FIR in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well known. The court may not enter into determination of a disputed question of fact at that stage. It may, however, take note of the allegations made in the complaint petition vis5a5vis the conduct of the parties. It is not disputed that the bank had filed an original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. A civil suit was filed at Vadodara in the year 2003. In the prospectus issued, it was stated :

# " $% "&

""# $ %&

$ !

'%(

)* %

+,( &&

) ( &

% $

$ $ ((.

(

( $ * % $ !

' !

$ ( &

+,( && , ( ,(

*( %/0 0 (*& 1 . -.

%% // 0 / + %+ 12 ''* * %+% 3,'!6@& ! +!

! 9

25. The High Court was justified in holding that disputed questions of fact are involved and the application under section 482 of Code has been rightly rejected. We do not find any scope for interference with the order of the High Court. However, we

' make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

. -141+$ 5 % $ 6+

$ ')* * %+% 3! @& ! +!

! 9

4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property belonged not only to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, but they were the owners alongwith respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 3 has died and respondent No. 4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos.

3 and 4 might have forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 subsequently and there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.

(

5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.

. -*%% % 7 82 $ ') * * %+% ,(36 @& ! +!

! 9

11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and Others, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 122 : 2000 (3) SCC 269, has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgement, which reads:

EF8 B!

! " ()* + ,!8

!& ! ! " - . '&

" $ G " !

" "

' B!

! G !!8 & "

. "

! !

! & ! 8 "! ,! ! "

- ! ! &!

! !&

"& ! B! " !E

12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 60 : 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 160 : 1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 937 : (2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that:

E'" ! ()*+!

&! " &! +!

&! ! ' & " &! B! ! !"!

&! +!

" !

()* + ! & 8 !&,!E

H $ $ *01*7(:+7+ :44* *01*76: 8!7

:1*3*01*71*:

++3*

What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that

quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.

.-9% &% $ "%:; $<= 1 '3 * * %+% '36 @& ! +!

! 9

4. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on 21.05.2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and again, it has been emphasised by this Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law. . C*% . +/% $ 1 ' ( * * %+% ( !< +!

! 9

19. As alleged by the petitioner, there are disputed questions of facts which can be considered by learned Trial Court during trial. The petitioner will get the liberty to defend his case, but at

this stage the trial cannot be stopped by quashing the proceedings, as sought by petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr P C of this Court.

.C +% ">"&?@ 1 $2 + $1 ',* * %+% )! ! +!

! 9

28. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

34. Whether those cheques were issued as alternative or supplementary instruments, or represented fresh undertakings, is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence at the time of trial and cannot be resolved at the threshold. Questions such as whether the firm's cheques were issued in substitution of the personal cheques, whether the parties treated them as alternative securities, and whether both were intended to be simultaneously enforceable, are all mixed questions of fact. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC cannot be used to decide such disputed issues.

! B!"!

"-.

!&,! &,!" & ! -.!

! "

&& ' !! ,! &8 ! ()*+

76*)5/ *0*2:

,! ! !

1A3+

@& ! +!

C +2 #A$ 6% .

+ 8 $ ')?6 (! ! 9

65. Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under section 197 CrPC, 1973 is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under: 5 7:'&B & 1A3+

1A32 & !& ! & 8!

& &" !

!& ! " & ! "!

& ! ' !

!& ! & & !

!& "! & >

7:'8 E

& &" !

!E 1A3+

+ 1A32 ! & !

& $& &" " 8 ' !

& ! 8 " E !

& & !& ! & " ! !& !

E E!

7:. +!

" ,! & 1A3+

+ 1A32 !

! !& ' !&! & $ >

!& ! 1A3 +

+ 1A32

" !

"&$ !

&& !& !

7: !& & !

! ! "

! ' ! &

$!!& !

1A3+

+ 1A32 !"

,! 8! E E

7:H " " "

"9" !&

& " !

7:%

& 9!

." " !& & &"

! !& ! !! ! !

& &!

" !

! ' ,!

& & !& &!&

! &! & &" !

7:. ! !& 8 ! 8 & "

& ! ! !& ! 1A3 +

+ 1A32! 8 & &" !

7:.E,! E !&8 ! !

& "!

& ! 1A3+

+ 1A32

78:' !

!!" 8 E E E!

E '

" ! ! 1A3 +

+ 1A32 & "

! & 8 ! &

. ! & & "

& " ! $ &B &

78: ' & ! !

" & &" ! & " ! !

E"!

& !& "!

" & ! ." ,! ! 1A3+

+ 1A32 & " " !!&

78:' !&&!&!& ! ! ! !& ' & !&8!& " $!! ! ! " " "

.! !

!& ! " !& ,!

78:H !

" !& & " ! & 1A3+

+ 1A32 &

. -$# % . # 1 ') * * %+% ('!@& ! +!

! 9

18. As per sub section (1) of Section 197 where any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

19. The ambit, scope and effect of Section 197 Cr.PC has received considerable attention of this court. It is not necessary to advert to and dilate on all such decisions. Suffice it to say that the object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings.

20. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, this court explained the underlying concept of protection under Section 197 and held as follows:

E3 ' ! 1A3

& !& ! & 8!

& &" !

!& ' !

,! !& !

! "! & ! # 8 ! ' & "

&!& & " ! $ &B & . ! 8 ! &! & &" ! 8 "

& ! ! !& ',!!

! "

! & !& &!" " &!& !

! 5 1A3 &$ !&" " !

& &" !

! .!"

,! 8! & ! & & !"

' !

" ! !& . ,! " &

" ! ' & ! !

" & &" !

' & "! !

!& !

" & ! ." ,! &! " &!& " ! " "

!!& ' $ 1A3 !

21. This aspect was also examined by this court in Shambhu Nath Misra (supra). Posing the question as to whether a public servant who allegedly commits the offence of fabrication of records or misappropriation of public funds can be said to have acted in the discharge of his official duties. Observing that it is not the official duty to fabricate records or to misappropriate public funds, this court held as under:

E6 ',!"!&

!& ! & ! . !!& &

!& ! !

' & &

!& ! .

$" !

"& & !

I ! " "8 &+!

22. Even in D. Devaraja (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, this court referred to Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) and held as follows:

( E26 . H #+ "J #+ "

7*00(:) ++(0*00( ++7+ :*10(K+!

! 8 E !E

!&&!& !

& ! 1A3++

1A328 &!& " ' " & !& !

23. Thus, this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.

XXXX XXXX XXXX

25. The question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons besides respondent No.2. There is another aspect of the matter. Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. Though liberty was granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the

chargesheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done.

26. That being the position, we are of the unhesitant view that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. Consequently, we set aside the order of the High Court dated 25.11.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 4998/2020. We make it clear that observations made in this judgment are only for the purpose of deciding the present challenge and should not be construed as our opinion on merit. That apart, all contentions are kept open.

B!"!

" ! & &

! . !&

$!!&

& ! 1A3+

C8 % ?

$% 2 .

+ + $ (1?*

+ ,,! @& ! +!

! !

+& $ ,!&

/ 10 ""

/ 6 & B! !! ! ()*+

+ 76*) 5/ :

! +&! $ ""! " & & ! ()*+

+ 7 6*)5/ : "!

!B! !!,! " '

Prima facie, 9 ! < =! 9+ $ " &

< =! + !9 / & !

& 9"

- % !& -

! 1A3 +

+ ,! "

! . !

&& !" +

9*:

! 9 ! ! 9 ! ,!

.&!

+99*(()09*01) $ ,! -. 8!

91:

. "+!

" ,!

" "" & '

& !

!" & /" ! +!

$ "$

H 06! 2) !"

8 ,!,!-.7 8!

91: 8!

9*:

." ! . '

8 !8! & &! & " 04 8 8&

' 7:

7",)"8

(

5 5

!$ ? $ L/ ? & L/