Full Text
Translation output
$-28/29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.2583/2014
RAJENDRA SINGH
Through Petitioner Mr. B.S. Joon and Ms. Aakxiti Mishra,Advs.
STATE & ANR
CRL.M.C.2583/2014
RAJENDRA SINGH
Through Petitioner Mr. B.S. Joon and Ms. Aakxiti Mishra,Advs.
STATE & ANR
VERSUS
Through AND
CRL.M.C.2591/2014
RAJENDRA SINGH
Through STATE & ANR
RAJENDRA SINGH
Through STATE & ANR
VERSUS
Through Respondents Mr. Amit Chadha, AFP with SI Lala
Ram,P.S.Lodhi Colony Respondent no.2in person
Petitioner Mr. B.S. Joon and Ms. Aakriti Mishra,Advs.
Respondents Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with SI Lala
Ram,P.S.Lodhi Colony Mr. D.P. Aggarwal, Adv. for respondent no.2
Ram,P.S.Lodhi Colony Respondent no.2in person
Petitioner Mr. B.S. Joon and Ms. Aakriti Mishra,Advs.
Respondents Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with SI Lala
Ram,P.S.Lodhi Colony Mr. D.P. Aggarwal, Adv. for respondent no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
06.03.2019 Petitioner was working as a teacher in D.C. Arya Senior Secondary
2019:DHC:7441 School,Lodhi Colony,New Delhi. He was compulsorily retired from the service in the year 1994,after holding inquiry as per the rules. In the year
1999,petitioner filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch ofDelhi
Police alleging therein certain irregularities and misappropriation offunds committed by the school authorities. No action was taken by the Anti-
Corruption Branch ofDelhiPolice.Thereafter,petitionerfiled an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
Vide order dated 28* September, 1999, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 351/1999 under
Sections 409/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was registered at police station Lodhi Colony. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Mr. B.L. Singal(Principal), Mr. Hitlal(Cashier)and Mr.Inder Lai
Singh(Teacher). Mr.Inder Lai Singh died during the pendency oftrial and proceedings against him were abated.
Vide order dated 8* October,2013 Mr. B.L. Singal was discharged; while charge under Sections409/420IPC wasframed against Mr.Hitlal.
Mr.Hitlal filed a Revision Petition against framing ofcharges against him. Petitioner filed a Revision Petition against discharge of Mr. B.L.
Singal. Vide order dated 14* December, 2013 Revision Petition of Mr. Hitlal has been allwed and he has been discharged for the offences under
Sections 409/420 IPC. Petitioner's petition has been dismissed, vide order dated 13^^ March,2014.
That is how,petitioner is before this Court by way ofpresent petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ilptcS
As regards Mr. Hetlai is concerned,trial court noted that allegations against him were that he had issued two receipts bearing nos. 1568 and 1860 of ^501/- and ?751/- respectively towards the donations received in the school. However,only ?101/- and ?151/- were reflected in the counterfoils ofthe receipts. It was,thus, alleged that he had misappropriated ^1,000/-.
Accordingly, charges were framed against Mr. Hitlal. Learned Revisional
Court has placed reliance on the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.ofthe donors, who had confirmed that they were originally required to pay ^501/- and ?751/-. However,subsequently,they had only given ?101/- and ?151/- respectively. Learned Revisional Court has noted that this amount has been correctly reflected in the counterfoil ofthe receipts. Revisonal Court has held that donors had not supported the allegations. Accordingly, no prima face case was made out against Mr. Hitlal for framing of charges under
Sections 406/420 IPC. ir As regards Mr. B.L. Singal is concerned, it was alleged that he had conspired with Mr. Hitlal. Learned Revisional Court has noted that there was no material on record to this effect to show that Mr. B.L. Singal had conspired with Mr. Hitlal. It was further noted that Mr. Hitlal was discharged; therefore, Mr. B.L. Singal could not have been charged.
Revisional Court has held that Mr.B.L.Singal was rightly discharged by the trial court.
It is noted that inquiry was held against the petitioner for having committed misconduct while in service. Petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and was compulsorily retired. After his compulsory retirement, he has filed complaints against the aforesaid persons alleging irregularity.
Revisional Court has noted that he was a disgruntled ex-employee of the school and had been pursuing the complaint out ofpersonal vendetta. Even otherwise, petitioner had no personal information and had filed the complaint on the basis of hypothetical assumptions and in order to make roving enquiry.
I do notfind any perversity in the impugned orders which may require interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Impugned orders have not resulted any miscarriage of justice. Both the petitions appearsto have been filed due to personal grudge, which petitioner is having since he was compulsory retired from the service.
Both the petitions are dismissed with costs of ?20,000/- each, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social
Security& Welfare Fund,New Delhi within six weeks. It is made clearthat ifreceipts evidencing deposit ofcosts are not filed in the Registry,no other petition ofthe petitioner shall be entertained by the Registry.
A.K.PATHAK,J.
MARCH 06,2019 r.bararia
06.03.2019 Petitioner was working as a teacher in D.C. Arya Senior Secondary
2019:DHC:7441 School,Lodhi Colony,New Delhi. He was compulsorily retired from the service in the year 1994,after holding inquiry as per the rules. In the year
1999,petitioner filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch ofDelhi
Police alleging therein certain irregularities and misappropriation offunds committed by the school authorities. No action was taken by the Anti-
Corruption Branch ofDelhiPolice.Thereafter,petitionerfiled an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
Vide order dated 28* September, 1999, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 351/1999 under
Sections 409/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was registered at police station Lodhi Colony. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Mr. B.L. Singal(Principal), Mr. Hitlal(Cashier)and Mr.Inder Lai
Singh(Teacher). Mr.Inder Lai Singh died during the pendency oftrial and proceedings against him were abated.
Vide order dated 8* October,2013 Mr. B.L. Singal was discharged; while charge under Sections409/420IPC wasframed against Mr.Hitlal.
Mr.Hitlal filed a Revision Petition against framing ofcharges against him. Petitioner filed a Revision Petition against discharge of Mr. B.L.
Singal. Vide order dated 14* December, 2013 Revision Petition of Mr. Hitlal has been allwed and he has been discharged for the offences under
Sections 409/420 IPC. Petitioner's petition has been dismissed, vide order dated 13^^ March,2014.
That is how,petitioner is before this Court by way ofpresent petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ilptcS
As regards Mr. Hetlai is concerned,trial court noted that allegations against him were that he had issued two receipts bearing nos. 1568 and 1860 of ^501/- and ?751/- respectively towards the donations received in the school. However,only ?101/- and ?151/- were reflected in the counterfoils ofthe receipts. It was,thus, alleged that he had misappropriated ^1,000/-.
Accordingly, charges were framed against Mr. Hitlal. Learned Revisional
Court has placed reliance on the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.ofthe donors, who had confirmed that they were originally required to pay ^501/- and ?751/-. However,subsequently,they had only given ?101/- and ?151/- respectively. Learned Revisional Court has noted that this amount has been correctly reflected in the counterfoil ofthe receipts. Revisonal Court has held that donors had not supported the allegations. Accordingly, no prima face case was made out against Mr. Hitlal for framing of charges under
Sections 406/420 IPC. ir As regards Mr. B.L. Singal is concerned, it was alleged that he had conspired with Mr. Hitlal. Learned Revisional Court has noted that there was no material on record to this effect to show that Mr. B.L. Singal had conspired with Mr. Hitlal. It was further noted that Mr. Hitlal was discharged; therefore, Mr. B.L. Singal could not have been charged.
Revisional Court has held that Mr.B.L.Singal was rightly discharged by the trial court.
It is noted that inquiry was held against the petitioner for having committed misconduct while in service. Petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and was compulsorily retired. After his compulsory retirement, he has filed complaints against the aforesaid persons alleging irregularity.
Revisional Court has noted that he was a disgruntled ex-employee of the school and had been pursuing the complaint out ofpersonal vendetta. Even otherwise, petitioner had no personal information and had filed the complaint on the basis of hypothetical assumptions and in order to make roving enquiry.
I do notfind any perversity in the impugned orders which may require interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Impugned orders have not resulted any miscarriage of justice. Both the petitions appearsto have been filed due to personal grudge, which petitioner is having since he was compulsory retired from the service.
Both the petitions are dismissed with costs of ?20,000/- each, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social
Security& Welfare Fund,New Delhi within six weeks. It is made clearthat ifreceipts evidencing deposit ofcosts are not filed in the Registry,no other petition ofthe petitioner shall be entertained by the Registry.
A.K.PATHAK,J.
MARCH 06,2019 r.bararia
JUDGMENT