( 2025:HHC:25005 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 959 of 2024 Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Date of Decision: 29th July, 2025. Prabhat Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 3/2010 dated 02.01.2010 registered at Police Station, Baijnath District Kangra for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police that Gram Panchayat, Badh, executed some works under the 2 National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in which the funds were misused. It was asserted that forged bills, quotations, muster rolls, and receipts were used to draw the money. The works were not completed. The construction of the path leading to the house of Guldei was started in January 2008, whereas the work was shown to have been started in December 2007. ₹ 47,100/- were withdrawn based on forged muster-roll out of which ₹2,865/- were paid to mason Kirpa Ram. In this manner, ₹49,995/- was misused. The work was completed on 26.02.2018, whereas the quotation was prepared on 01.03.2008. A forged bill of ₹87,442/- was prepared in the name of Raj Kumar. All the bills and quotations were written by one person. Kirpa Ram had issued a forged receipt of ₹7,493/- in the name of Gram Panchayat for the work done in January 2008 and February 2008. The work was carried out for 57 days w.e.f. 01.01.2008 till 26.02.2008, whereas wages for 59 days were paid to Kirpa Ram. An amount of ₹ 2 lakh was sanctioned for the construction of the road, but no road was constructed on the spot. The entries in the measurement book were also changed. A complaint was made to Block Development Officer, Lambagaon, who conducted an inquiry and found the misappropriation of 3 the money. The Pardhan and other members drew the money for attending the meeting and for working on various projects under NREGA. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police prepared a cancellation report on 16.05.2011. However, the report was rejected by the Court. The police conducted further investigation and submitted a cancellation report on 30.04.2015. This report was again rejected. The police conducted further investigation and found that an objection was raised during the audit regarding the marking of attendance of Kirpa Ram for 59 days. An amount of ₹127 was deposited with the secretary. The members of the Panchayat attended the meetings and obtained the honorarium. They also withdrew the wages for working on the project. This fact was pointed out in the audit. Bihari Lal deposited ₹300, Meera deposited ₹600/-, Jalam Ram deposited ₹425/-, Chatar Singh deposited ₹225/-, and Gaitari Devi deposited ₹150/- after the audit objections. Parbhat Chand had marked the presence of Sudarshna Devi, Bihari Lal, Chatar Singh, Jalam Singh, Meera Devi and others and helped in the disbursal of the money. An amount of ₹2,029/- was misappropriated in the year 2007-08. Hence, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. 4 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that there is no evidence against them. The complaint is the result of a political vendetta as the informant had contested elections against the petitioner No.2 and lost the same. The petitioners are innocent and they never committed any forgery; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and the consequential proceedings be quashed. 4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. It was asserted that police had presented two cancellation reports on 03.08.2010 & 30.04.2015; however, the complainant presented the protest petition against those cancellation reports. Learned Trial Court returned the file for further investigation. It was found that an amount of ₹2,029/- was fraudulently withdrawn by the petitioners, and this amount was deposited after objections were raised in the audit reports. Petitioners cannot escape from the consequences of their acts. There was sufficient material on record to show the 5 involvement of the petitioners; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. A rejoinder denying the contempts of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed. 6. I have heard Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 7. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The informant has political disputes with the petitioners. He had contested the election for the post of Pardhan and lost. He filed the false complaint to falsely implicate the petitioners. Excess money withdrawn by the petitioners has already been deposited, and there is no loss to the government. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed. 8. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the police conducted the investigation and found the embezzlement of ₹2,029/-. The 6 amount was withdrawn in excess and was deposited after objections were raised in the audit report. The deposit of the amount prima facie shows the guilt of the petitioners; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 10. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series 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 exercised 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 7 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 FIR 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 non-cognizable 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 based on 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 8 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 a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1), it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 11. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. 9 These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) 12. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. A perusal of the final report shows that petitioners Parbhat Chand and Sudarshna Devi had marked the attendance of Kirpa Ram for 59 days, whereas the work was carried out w.e.f. 01.01.2008 till 26.02.2008 for 57 days; therefore, an excess amount of ₹227 was paid to Kirpa Ram. This fact was verified by the report of the handwriting expert. Prima facie, these 10 allegations show that a wrong entry of 59 days was made, and in this manner, Kirpa Ram benefited by ₹227 as the wages for 2 days. 14. The petitioners Bihari Lal, Meera Devi, Jalam Ram, Chattar Singh and Gayatri Devi had marked their attendance as labourers in the muster roll. They had also attended the proceedings of Panchayat as members of Panchayat. In this manner, they withdrew the amount from Panchayat and NERGA. Bihari Lal benefited by ₹ 300/-, Meera Devi benefited by ₹600/-, Jalam Ram benefited by ₹425/-, Chatar Singh benefited by ₹225/-, and Gayatri Devi benefited by ₹150/-. When the petitioners marked their attendance on the Muster-roll, they represented that they were present on the spot and were executing the work. This is incorrect because they had also attended the meeting of the Panchayat and could not have been executing the work. Their misrepresentation led the government to pay them the excess amount. Hence, prima facie, an offence of cheating is made out in the present case. 15. It was submitted that the money was deposited after the excess payment was detected during the audit. This 11 submission will not help the petitioners. It was laid down in Vishwa Nath v. State of J & K, (1983) 1 SCC 215: 1983 SCC (Cri) 173: 1983 SCC OnLine SC 15 that mere deposit of the embezzled amount does not absolve a person of the commission of the crime. It was observed: “6. We do not consider it necessary to refer to any decision. The facts and circumstances of this case clearly establish that there was embezzlement of government money by the accused, since the accused had put to personal use the government money entrusted to him instead of depositing the same in the proper place. The fact that the accused refunded the amount when the act of his defalcation came to be discovered does not absolve him of the offence committed by him. The accused happened to be a public servant of the Police Department and was posted as Naib-Court. He was entrusted with the amount seized in two cases, FIR Nos. 16 and 17. In complete violation of the directions of law, he had failed to send the amount to Sadar Court, Udhampur and with criminal intention, he had not made any entry of the money in Rahdari Register while he made its entry in the Malkhana Register No. 1 so that his misappropriation of the amount might not be detected by anybody. He committed a criminal breach of trust with respect to this money over which he had complete dominion by putting the same to his use between February 7, 1972, and August 8, 1972. The refund of the amount after detection does not absolve him of the offence.” 16. It was submitted that the amount stated to be embezzled by the petitioners is meagre and the continuation of the proceedings would constitute harassment. This submission 12 will not help the petitioners. The Court is not concerned with the amount, but with the fact that the petitioners were members of the panchayat and were aware of the fact that they were getting wages for work executed under NREGA by marking their attendance. They also withdrew money for attending the Panchayat proceedings. They could not be present at two places. Therefore, they had made a wrong representation to enrich themselves by honorarium/wages. Their lack of probity is significant and not the amount taken by them. 17. It was submitted that the petitioners committed an honest mistake and that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that they could not withdraw the money as honorarium and as wages. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioners could not have been present at two places at the same time, and there can be no question of any honest mistake in making a representation of their presence at two places at one time. In any case, the petitioners can always demonstrate during the trial that they had committed an honest mistake and there was no mala fide in their actions. 13 18. It was submitted that the police had earlier filed the cancellation report, which shows that no case was made out. This submission will also not help the petitioners. The investigation in the present case shows that the attendance was marked at two places and benefits were drawn from two places by the petitioners. Therefore, wrong entries were made and pecuniary benefits were derived based on the wrong entries. This aspect was ignored by the earlier investigating officers, and this ignorance will not help the petitioners. 19. The FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and it is not permissible to quash the FIR while exercising the inherent jurisdiction. 20. In view of the above, present petition fails and the same be dismissed. 21. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) 29th July 2025 Judge (Ritu)