IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 9453-M of 2008 Date of decision : September 05, 2009 Shiv Parkash Sharma ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Pardeep Virk, DAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. 9453-M of 2008 filed by Shiv Parkash Sharma and Criminal Misc. No. 32492-M of 2007 filed by Naresh Kumar, both for quashing of FIR No. 16 dated 10.8.2005, under sections 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station S.V.B. Rohtak, District Rohtak (Annexure P/1). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The prosecution version is that petitioner Shiv Parkash Sharma while posted as Horticulture Development Officer and petitioner Naresh Kumar while posted as Clerk in the office of District Horticulture Officer, Criminal Misc. No. 9453-M of 2008 -2- Sonepat, in connivance with their co-accused Azad Singh non-petitioner who was District Horticulture Officer, Soneat embezzled certain amounts and prepared bogus record regarding purchase of 15000 plants at the rate of Rs 5 per plant instead of Rs 2.50 per plant and regarding tours of farmers and purchase of net. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioner Shiv Parkash Sharma has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the same allegations vide charge sheet Annexure P/7 and order Annexure P/9. Similarly Naresh Kumar petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings except that warning has been issued to him for making payment of taxi fares to the drivers instead of making the same to the owners. It has been observed that no loss to the Government exchequer has been caused by Shiv Parkash Sharma. Learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly contended that in view of exoneration of both these petitioners in the disciplinary proceedings, on the same allegations, their prosecution in the impugned FIR would be an abuse of process of court. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurnam Singh versus State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 51 and also a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.Rajya versus State of Bihar, 1996(4) S.C.T. 21. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that FIR against the petitioners was registered after inquiry by State Vigilance Bureau and the petitioners were also found involved in the embezzlement and other irregularities alongwith their co-accused Azad Singh. Criminal Misc. No. 9453-M of 2008 -3- I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is un-disputed that in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners have not been found guilty for embezzlement. Shiv Parkash Sharma has been exonerated completely whereas Naresh Kumar has been given warning for making payments to drivers of the taxies instead of making payments to the owners thereof. In view of exoneration of both the petitioners in departmental proceedings and in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (supra) and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.Rajya (supra), it would be a futile exercise to prosecute the petitioners because degree of proof required in criminal proceedings is much higher than the degree of proof required in departmental proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, both these petitions are allowed and impugned FIR No. 16 dated 10.8.2005, under sections 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station S.V.B. Rohtak, District Rohtak (Annexure P/1), is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as against petitioners Shiv Parkash Sharma and Naresh Kumar only. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 05, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'