Krishna Murari Bangar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

15. It is claimed that the Ld. CMM had completely misled himself in passing the said Order on Charge, by ignoring the crucial fact that there was no material on record to even remotely suggest any suspicion against the Petitioner. It has also not been appreciated that Petitioner was being targeted maliciously by the CBI despite being repeatedly absolved by way of the several Closure Reports filed by different Investigation Officers of CBI.

16. During the pendency of the earlier proceedings before this Court challenging cognizance taken by the Ld. CMM against the Petitioner, primary accused, Syed S. Ali had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition bearing No.05/2015 before the learned Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 07.11.2017 as the Charges have already been framed against the Petitioner by way of Orders dated 13.10.2014 and 21.01.2015.

17. In the interim, Departmental proceedings conducted against the Petitioner for undertaking official journey on false basis, fabrication of hotel bills and claiming inflated TA/DA bills during his alleged stay with S. S. Ali during investigations in the earlier FIR, was concluded and the Petitioner was exonerated from all charges in the enquiry.

18. It is asserted that the only allegation in the present FIR has been found to be un-substantiated against the Petitioner, despite which he is being continuously harassed by repeatedly being investigated and tried for the same allegation.

19. The grounds for seeking quashing of Chargesheet and Order on Charge are that learned ASJ has been completely misled to proceed on the assumption that the Petitioner’s Revision Petition tantamounted to review of the dismissal of Revision Petition of the co-accused. Furthermore, Impugned Order is predicated on the only ground that the Charges against the Coaccused have been upheld but the same is contrary to records, as the Petitioner had different role from the primary accused. The only allegation against the Petitioner is of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, while the co-accused S.S. Ali has been charged with substantial charges under Sections 217 and 218 IPC.

20. Learned ASJ has observed that the Petitioner was charged for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/465/467/468/471 IPC, which is incorrect, as the only charge against the Petitioner is Section 120B read with Sections 217/218 of IPC. Learned Sessions Court proceeded in complete misdirection by relying on the earlier FIR against the Petitioner, to prejudice itself against the Petitioner. The earlier FIR against the Petitioner was in relation to baseless allegations of securing Government employment by using fake Schedule Tribe Certificates. The aforesaid investigation has already been closed against the Petitioner, not only by the S.S. Ali (the then IO) but by present Complainant also. After four Closure Reports, the Petitioner was absolved of the previous charges as the Court has also accepted the Closure Report. The reference to previous FIR was therefore, irrelevant and the present case should be decided uninfluenced by the same.

21. There is no role or specific allegation that can be attributed to the Petitioner on the basis of material on record. The instant case arises out of an FIR against S. S. Ali, the primary accused for not having conducted the investigations in fair manner in FIR No. RC No.AC-I/2011/A0008, to save the Petitioner from punishment. Petitioner was not even named in the present FIR. There is no evidence, even to remotely suggest that there was any agreement with the primary accused. Maliciously his name has been inserted in the Chargesheet.

22. Respondent has no grievances against the Closure Reports in the previous FIR. The impugned Chargesheet has wrongly alleged that Shri. S.

23. Petitioner is a Government servant and therefore, sanction of the Competent Authority was necessary, before prosecuting the Petitioner. The Respondent in utter disregard of Section 197 Cr.P.C, has not taken sanction from the Competent Authority. Therefore, Chargesheet is liable to be quashed.

24. Even if the allegation that S. S. Ali visited the Petitioner’s house and stayed in the same hotel as the Petitioner, is admitted to be correct for the sake of argument, it does not amount to conspiracy. It is submitted that Petitioner was instructed by his seniors of the Department and CBI Officials to join the Investigations and co-operate with the Investigating Officer or face the consequences of being arrested. Petitioner took every step to cooperate and assist in investigations the case and, therefore, cannot be held liable for co-operating and assisting the CBI officials.

25. There was personal animosity between Shri S. S. Ali and other Officers of the Respondent CBI; and the Petitioner has been targeted unnecessarily.

26. Hence, prayer is made that Impugned Order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Ld. ASJ (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision NO. 822/2018 upholding the Order on Charge dated 21.01.2015 and Order dated 13.10.2014 directing framing of charge against the Petitioner by Ld. CMM be also set aside, and Chargesheet dated 27.11.2012 in RC No.AC- I/2011/A0008 P.S. CBI, AC-I, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the Petitioner, be also quashed.

27. CBI in its detailed Reply has taken preliminary objection that learned Trial Court, after considering the entire record along with the Chargesheet and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, had passed Order on Charge dated 13.10.2014, whereby Petitioner Krishna Murari Bangar as well as co-accused S. S. Ali have been charged for offence under Sections 120B/217/218 IPC. Revision Petition filed by S. S. Ali challenging the Order on Charge has already been dismissed. Petitioner had also filed Revision Petition on the same grounds as co-accused, but met the same fate and his Petition got dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide Order dated 20.02.2020.

28. Therefore, prayer made by the Petitioner is against the spirit and mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Som Nath Thana and Others, [(1996) 4 SCC 659]; Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403; CBI vs.

29. On facts, it is asserted that FIR bearing No. RC No.AC-1/2011A0008 was registered on 13.09.2011 under Sections 217 & 218 IPC on the basis of a Complaint dated 12.09.2011 filed Inspector Vishal, CBI, SC-1, New Delhi alleging that investigations in RC No. 6/(S)/2010/CBI/SC-1/New Delhi dated 24.04.2010 under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Petitioner Krishna Murari Bangar, were entrusted to Shri S. S. Ali, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SC-1, New Delhi, who did not conduct investigation in a proper and fair manner. Subsequently, the Chargesheet had been filed under Sections 120B, 217 and 218 IPC.

30. Investigations revealed that Petitioner was appointed as Senior Laboratory Assistant in Bank Note Press on 28.02.1979 on the basis of ST Caste Certificate dated 23.05.1978 of caste Halba (Koshti) issued by the Collector, District Sagar, M.P. It was asserted that S. S. Ali, in connivance with the Petitioner Krishna Murari Bangar, had manipulated the entire investigations and incorrectly recorded the statements of witnesses during investigations of first FIR. So much so, it has been found that on two occasions, he had traveled with the Petitioner and also stayed in the same Hotel. Witnesses had been produced by the Petitioner, who had given false statements, which resulted in closure of first FIR.

31. On these allegations, that there was conspiracy between the Petitioner and co-accused S. S. Ali, in manipulating the investigations in the first FIR, the sanction was obtained for launching prosecution against S. S. Ali, who had misconducted in discharge of his duties, while no sanction was required against the Petitioner as his acts were not in discharge of his official duties Consequently, Chargesheet has been rightly filed against the Petitioner, The Revision Petition preferred by the co-accused S. S. Ali, has met with dismissal. On the same grounds, Petitioner cannot re-agitate and challenge the Order on Charge.

32. It is submitted that the Petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Submissions heard and record perused.

33. Record shows that on 28.02.1979, Petitioner was appointed as Senior Laboratory Assistant in Bank Note Press against Schedule Tribe vacancy on the basis of ST Caste Certificate No.222 dated 23.05.1978 and also second Certificate dated 20.03.1979 of caste Halba (Koshti) both issued by the Collector, District Sagar, M.P. He was then promoted to the rank of Technical Assistant, Grade-II in 1981. Thereafter, he joined Small Industries Services Institute as Small Industries Promotion Officer (Chemical) on 30.08.1983 through UPSC against ST quota vacancy. He was again asked to produce a fresh ST certificate on a prescribed proforma, which he obtained from Anushuchit Jan Jati Vibhag from Zila Samyojak, Adim Jati Kalyan, Sagar vide Caste Certificate No.248 dated 25.02.1985 showing his caste ‘Halba Jan Jati’. He then got selected to the post of Assistant Director Grade-1 in 1991, but he was appointed only in 1995, after the Order dated 07.07.1995 passed by CAT, Patna Branch.

34. The narration of the facts shows that the Petitioner had first secured the job in 1979 against ST quota, on the basis of Caste Certificate. Subsequently, in the year 2010, it got challenged resulting in the registration of RC No. 6/(S)/2010/CBI/SC-1/New Delhi dated 24.04.2010 under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

35. It is pertinent to note that in 1991 his promotion to the post of Assistant Director Grade-1, was challenged on the ground that he did not belong to the ST category. However, learned CAT vide Order dated 07.07.1995 referred to judgment dated 21.01.1982 passed by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prabodh vs. State of M.P., MP 1456/1981, wherein it was considered in detail whether Halba tribe belongs to Scheduled Tribes for Madhya Pradesh. After detailed discussion, members of Halba were included in the list of ST. In the said case, reference was also made to the case of Sonabai vs. Lakshmibai, 1956 N.L.J. 725, wherein also it had been held that Halba belong to ST.

36. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s father was adopted and adoption got challenged in Civil Suit filed in the year 1943. While deciding the said Civil Suit, it was held that parties were Halba Koshti and belong to Halba or Halbi Tribe.

37. Reference was also made to See Madhukar vs. Deen of the Medical College, Nagpur, L.P.A. No.157/1955 decided on 14.08.1957, wherein Bombay High Court had also taken the view that Halba Koshti forms a Section of Koshti community, which belongs to Scheduled Tribe of Halba or Halbi.

38. Therefore, CAT concluded that Petitioner belongs to ST community and he was directed to be promoted. Consequently, Petitioner got promoted in the year 1995.

39. Though the Complaint was made against him in the year 2010, that his Caste Certificates were fake, but after investigations conducted by S. S. Ali, it was again re-affirmed that he belongs to ST community. Consequently, first Closure Report got filed in the first FIR on 25.08.2010, which was followed by two Supplementary Closure Report dated 06.10.2010 and 08.11.2010, reiterating the ground for closure. It seems that CBI was unhappy with the investigations that were conducted by S. S. Ali, I.O. and handed over the investigations to Inspector Vishal, who also filed final Closure Report dated 29.06.2011, which was accepted by learned CMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 23.07.2011. CBI never challenged this acceptance of Closure Report.

40. From the entire aforesaid discussion, it is established that the Petitioner was held to be belonging to ST Community and therefore, Closure Report was filed in the first FIR, which was accepted by the Court.

41. The present second FIR No. RC No.AC-I/2011/A0008 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC got filed on Complaint of Inspector Vishal, who asserted that Petitioner had accompanied S. S. Ali during investigations on two occasions and had stayed in the same Hotel and also travelled together to Sagar, M.P. It was also alleged that the Petitioner had procured witnesses, who gave false statements in regard to the Petitioner belonging to ST Community. It was claimed in the Chargesheet that these statements of the witnesses have been procured by S. S. Ali in connivance with the Petitioner. It was further stated that S. S. Ali had contacted various authorities, including DM and collected the records, to conclude that the Petitioner belongs to ST category.

42. From the averments made in the Complaint itself, it is evident that the Petitioner had accompanied S. S. Ali during investigations. There is nothing on record to show that the statements of the witnesses, were incorrect. It cannot be overlooked that whether the Petitioner belonged to ST category, was to be determined on the basis of the documents and not on the basis of the statements of the witnesses. Furthermore, in the CAT vide Order dated 07.07.1995, reference has been made to earlier judgments, to hold that Halbi Koshtis belongs to Scheduled Tribe of Halba or Halbi. Essentially, it is a case, which has to be decided on the basis of the documents and not the statements of the Parties.

43. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the its Judgment dated 28.11.2000 in Civil Appeal No.2294/1986 titled as State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, (supra) directed that persons belonging to Halbi Koshti/Koshti caste, who have been appointed against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of ST Certificate issued to them by competent authority and whose appointment have become final on or before 28.11.2000, shall not be affected or disturbed by any investigation.

44. Petitioner got appointed in 1979 and had even been given promotion in the year 1995, pursuant to the Order of the CAT. It all shows that there existed sufficient documents and judgments, justifying the Petitioner’s appointment against ST Category.

45. Merely because he had accompanied S. S. Ali during investigations for recording of statements or allegedly stayed in the same Hotel with S. S. Ali or allegedly some witnesses were arranged by him, cannot be terms as connivance or conspiracy to collect false evidence. There is no offence under Sections 217/218 IPC or of conspiracy discernable from the facts narrated in the Chargesheet.

46. Even in the Departmental proceedings which had been conducted against the Petitioner for undertaking official journey on false basis, fabrication of hotel bills and claiming inflated TA/DA bills during his alleged stay with S. S. Ali during investigations in the earlier FIR, the Petitioner had been exonerated from all charges in the enquiry.

47. It is pertinent to observe that merely because the charges were sustained against co-accused S. S. Ali for not having conducted the investigations fairly, cannot be an act which can be attributed to the Petitioner as well, merely because Section 120B IPC has been invoked.

48. Moreso, when there is nothing to reflect that Petitioner had conspired to not collect the correct evidence. It is significant to observe while there were three Closure Reports were filed by S. S. Ali wherein it was alleged that he had not conducted fair investigations, Final Closure Report has also been filed by the Complainant Inspector Vishal in the first FIR, which got accepted by learned MM on 23.07.2011.

49. It is also pertinent to note that once his Certificate has been accepted, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court and his appointments have been confirmed, the continuation of the present Chargesheet is an abuse of process of law. In the light of judgment of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Anr., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Chargesheet against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed.

50. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that no conspiracy on the part of the Petitioner is established in not conducting the fair investigations by co-accused S. S. Ali. Therefore, the Chargesheet against the Petitioner is hereby quashed.

51. Petition along with pending Applications is disposed of.

JUDGE DECEMBER 12, 2025