1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1679/2006 PARAS MAL V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 21.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. S.P.Sharma ) for Petitioner (s). Mr. M.S.Rathore ) Mr. O.P.Rathi, PP, for the State. Mr.I.R.Choudhary, for Respondent No.2. Petitioner requests quashing of FIR No.126/06, Police Station, Thawla registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 409, IPC. Respondent No.2 Naib Tehsildar lodged an FIR stating that (1) petitioner Patwari is suspended vide order dated 2.7.05. (2) new Patwari appointed as per order dated 14.7.05. (3) Order to hand over charge by Parasmal to newly appointed Patwari on 16.7.05. (4) Some record handed over by P but (5) mentioned (in FIR) record not handed over so far. According to description of documents, not give in charge many receipt books, some revenue record and mutation register files etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) non-handing over charge is purely a matter of departmental inquiry. (2) Petitioner a Patwari preferred writ petition before the High Court, challenging his transfer and suspension and his suspension set aside. (3) Respondent re- instated. (4) Petitioner on duty allowed to take charge shows that he had handed over complete charge. (5) In writ petition, preferred by the petitioner, order of status quo dated 2.8.05 – so the petitioner could not have handed over charge. Argued that alleged non-handing over of complete record, because of transfer or suspension, does not amount to breach of trust and no allegation about misappropriation is. In support of contentions, relied on (i) 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 520, Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram & Another, (ii) 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 691, Ratan Lal & Others v. State of 2 Rajasthan & Another, and (iii) 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 574, Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that clear are direct allegations against the petitioner in FIR – suspended in July, 05, order to hand-over charge in mid July, still till FIR, important record not handed- over. Argued that if or no charge given afterwards or its implications are to be examined only after investigation on submission of police report. Also argued that order in writ petition of petitioner was not for handing over record. In support of contentions, reliance placed on (i) JT 2002 (3) SC 89, B.L.Bhatt v. M.K.Pandita & Others, (ii) (2006) 6 SCC 736, Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others. Argued that FIR/complaint is to be examined on its face value and matter not to be probed into deeply. Considered arguments. Order of status quo is dated 2.5.05 and also is order of 19.12.05 in S. B.Civil Writ Petition No.422/05. Record which is not given, includes many receipt books and also revenue record – alleged to have been suspended in early July and order to hand-over charge in mid-July and the FIR is of 1st November. Argued are the factual aspects which are to be probed in course of investigation. Petitioner shall have remedy to raise all the points at appropriate stage. Looking to above, no case of quashing FIR is made out. The petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, it is directed that if any documents are submitted by the petitioner to the investigating agency, the same shall be taken into consideration by the agency. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd