IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.180 of 2009 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Smt. Manju Kannojia ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the applicant Mr. H.O. Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Dated: September 12, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, applicant-Smt. Manju Kannojia, who is posted as Child Development Project Officer at Roorkee, has challenged the chargesheet no.219 of 2008 dated 4.12.2008 submitted by the police after investigation and the order of cognizance dated 3.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Roorkee, District Haridwar against her. The said chargesheet was submitted registering it as a criminal case no.463 of 2009 for the offence of Sections 409 and 420 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court noticing that respondent no.2 Vikram Singh, Block Development Officer was impleaded personally, so thought it appropriate to send a notice to him but since the learned counsel of applicant has pressed this Court for stay of the proceedings, which are going on in the lower court and at the same time, it was felt that Vikram Singh, Block Development Officer, in his personal capacity has nothing to do with this case because the FIR was lodged by him against the petitioner in his official capacity for the irregularities allegedly committed by her during the course of her official duties, so it is of no avail to send the notice to respondent no.2 and get it served upon him. In the helm of above affairs, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2 It transpires that on 21.8.2008, Chief Development Officer, who is a Top Officer of the District for carrying out of development works, inspected the Stock/Go-down nay the concerning register which were supposed to have the storage of biscuits and other nutritious food for distribution to keep the health of children and women fit in the Block of Roorkee (Haridwar), he noticed the gross irregularity in the concerning register and embezzlement of the biscuits and the nutritious food. That foodstuff was shown to have been distributed without any signatures to evade the accountability of the task. The applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia, having her primary responsibility to look after all these affairs, even did not sign on the relevant register and papers, and if signed at some place, then it was illegible. So, at the instructions of the Chief Development Officer, Vikram Singh, Block Development Officer lodged an FIR on dated 21.8.2008 wherein the names of two other officials Devki Mukherjee, Clerk and Sandhya Bhatt, Supervisor were also mentioned but after the investigation, the police submitted instant chargesheet only against the applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that basically Devki Mukherjee and Sandhya Bhatt were responsible for maintaining all those registers and supervising the stock and distribution of the foodstuff but they have been absolved by the Investigating Officer and the applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia has been implicated for some ulterior motive. The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the letters written by Devki Mukherjee, Junior Clerk on dated 18.8.2008 and 21.8.2008 to the petitioner wherein it is stated that at the time of above mentioned inspection, Chief Servant was on leave, therefore, the stock could not be produced for verification. This explanation is a very lame excuse and not acceptable at all. 3 The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards paragraph 4 of the petition that applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia was transferred from ‘Roorkee’ to ‘Jakholi’ (District Rudraprayag) on administrative grounds and since she has got that order of her transfer stayed on 8.7.2008, so as a vengeance, the report was lodged against her. This contention too is not acceptable at all because her transfer, on the administrative grounds, probably might have been for the reason so that she may not influence the investigation by manipulating and managing the things being posted locally there. So the argument of alleged vengeance is unsubstantial. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that later a departmental enquiry was conducted by Planning Director Deep Chand Arya for the alleged irregularities of the applicant, wherein she was completely exonerated from all the charges. This argument is also not tenable because this departmental enquiry, the report whereof was submitted on 23.4.2009, cannot obliterate the independent enquiry conducted by the I.O. of the police prior to it whereupon the chargesheet has been submitted and the chances cannot be ruled out that the petitioner being locally resident and having posted there influenced the departmental enquiry. Learned counsel of the applicant has also vociferously argued the exoneration by the I.O to Devki Mukherjee, Junior Clerk and Sandhya Bhatt, Supervisor. This argument is also of no avail because as disclosed in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, the chargesheet against Devki Mukherjee and Sandhya Bhatt has also been submitted by the I.O. and to the Circle Officer on 21.3.2009 and in all probabilities, the same would have been in turn submitted to the court for trial. Otherwise also, mere the I.O. cannot be the decider of the destiny of any person by submitting or 4 withholding the filing of chargesheet. If the chargesheet submitted against the co-accused is not forwarded to the court by the Circle Officer, then the accused persons, if during trial their role is found, can be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel of the applicant has also taken recourse to Section 197 Cr.P.C. and has vehemently argued that without the permission of the State Government, the prosecution against the applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia cannot be launched. This argument is also totally unsubstantial. Learned counsel has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40”. This precedent is not applicable for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the necessity of Section 197 Cr.P.C. for launching the prosecution against the higher forest officers, who were the government employees not removable from their office except and save by or with the permission of the State Government, however this is not the case in hand. The applicant Smt. Manju Kanojia is not an officer of the same cadre which is equivalent to the Judges or the Magistrates. For her removal from the office, no permission of the State Government is needed. For applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner Smt. Manju Kanojia, her status as a government employee to the Judge or Magistrate is needed on the basis of principle of ejusdem generis, which is a well-established principle of rule of construction. Moreover, the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to analyse the entire facts and controversy very scrupulously. It is to be seen only prima faciely whether there is any abuse of process of law or not. 5 For the grounds stated hereinabove, the Court is of the considered view that it is the case of sheer corruption and there is no misuse or abuse of the process of law in submitting the chargesheet against the applicant Smt. Manju Kannojiya and proceeding of the trial against her. The petition is totally meritless and is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. Let the information be sent to the lower court concerned for launching the prosecution ahead. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.09.2011 Rajeev Dang