IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 402 of 2007 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C) H.M. Cairae and another. ……….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate for the Applicant. Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Sri A.U. Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been advanced to quash criminal case no. 102A of 2006 titled as K.P. Dubey Vs. V.K. Jain and others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat as well as order of cognizance dated 25.06.2005 passed therein. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that complainant K.P. Dubey was a Trained Graduate Mathematics Teacher in Central School running under the supervision of Chief Engineer, National Hydro Power Corporation Unit, Banbasa. The overall administrative control and supervision upon the said educational institution was of Central Schools Organization, Headquarter at New Delhi. At the relevant time, petitioner no. 1 H.M. Caire, was Executive Commissioner of the same. V.K. Jain, being the Chief Engineer of NHPC Unit, was head of the Management Committee. V.K. Agarwal was Principal of the School at the relevant time. S.C. Jain was Assistant Commissioner looking after the administration of the Central Schools in Uttarakhand, having its regional office at Dehradun. M.N. Swami was 2 another Assistant Commissioner. G.S. Mehta succeeded as Principal of the School after V.K. Agarwal and Vijay Bahadur Yadav was another TGT Teacher in School. 3. First Information Report dated 14.05.2003 was lodged, on the application moved by K.P. Dubey under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., bearing crime no. 93 of 2003 against all the abovementioned persons, who were office bearers of the Central School in their different capacities as narrated above. K.P. Dubey made several allegations against all the persons named above implicating them for the offence under Section 406, 380, 457, 352, 504, 306 IPC. After investigation, police submitted a final report on dated 18.02.2004 along with a report to take action against K.P. Dubey under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer was of the view that the said report lodged by K.P. Dubey was quite false and it was lodged with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful powers to the injury of another person. He requested the court to take action against the complainant K.P. Dubey for the offence under Section 182 IPC and punish him. 4. K. P. Dubey filed a protest petition whereupon learned Magistrate passed order on dated 06.08.2004 asking the police for making further investigation on sundry points stated therein. Police again submitted the final report on dated 12.01.2005 after complying the direction of the Magistrate. K.P. Dubey filed second protest petition on 25.06.2005 whereupon the learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant through his counsel passed impugned order of cognizance dated 25.06.2005. This order is challenged by H.M. Cairae, senior IAS officer and V.K. Jain by way of present petition. It is pertinent to mention that this order has not been challenged by any other person named in the First Information Report. At the time of 3 filing of this petition, H.M. Cairae was working in Assam Secretariat, Guwahati while V.K. Jain was working as Executive Director in the corporate office of NHPC, Faridabad, Haryana. This Court has been apprised that V.K. Jain has been superannuated and H.M. Cairae is working as such in Assam. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that at the time of lodging of First Information Report, K.P. Dubey was working as a teacher in the school and all other persons against whom FIR was lodged, happened to be the office bearers of the Central School Organization in various senior position except Vijay Bahadur Yadav, who was colleague of K.P. Dubey. K.P. Dubey made several allegations thereby exposing the scandal regarding purchase of computers, furniture, stationery etc. without observing proper rules and inviting quotations. He also raised allegation of diversion of fund to the tune of almost Rs. 8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakh), which was meant for welfare of the school, to the account of NHPC local unit at Banbasa. 6. K.P. Dubey claimed himself as model and ideal teacher nay a sharp and vigilant guardian of son, who was taught in the same school. Feeling disgruntled with the working of the Management Committee and it’s grabbing a considerable sinews of war of the school, he inspired to lodge First Information Report, in question, which resulted into submission of final report two times. 7. Having a look upon the impugned order dated 25.06.2005, it is manifest that learned Magistrate has not taken trouble even to mention the names of prospective accused against whom he intends to launch the prosecution, probably for all those offences, which are indicated at the top of the First 4 Information Report. He has not mentioned even the particulars of penal sections, which he intends allegedly to have been violated by persons whose names appeared in the First Information Report. 8. Learned Magistrate, after receiving the final report, though competent to reject the same, took cognizance in the matter but he could have done so stating the evidence, which is available on the record at the time of submission of the final report by Investigating Officer. If that evidence is not available then he could have registered the protest petition as complaint case and asked the complainant and his witnesses to produce the evidence in support of their allegations. Learned Magistrate did not find any evidence, which was available in as much as collected by the Investigating Officer. He has not adopted the second course too, as stated above by this Court. He has passed the impugned order of cognizance simply relying upon the allegations made by K.P. Dubey in his protest petition which is not permissible at all. Fortiori, the allegations of corruption in the matter of mundane purchase of computers, furniture, stationery etc. are to be raised before court of competent jurisdiction and that court was certainly not the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat but a special court notified for particular region including several districts. So on this aspect also protest petition filed by K.P. Dubey was not worthy to be considered. 9. Both petitioners were public servants. Firstly, H.M. Cairae was not directly involved in all these alleged scandals. He was occupying a top position looking the administration of thousands of schools in India and abroad, so he was not supposed to have any complicity in these matters. V.K. Jain was also a public servant, occupying a top position of Chief 5 Engineer in the NHPC Unit, at Banbasa so he too cannot be supposed to have any complicity in these routine purchase matters of school. It is also noteworthy that no permission, which is indispensable requisite under Section 197 Cr.P.C., has ever been sought. As regards allegations of stealing of some cash, after breaking the lock of almirah of K.P. Dubey placed in the school, do not inspire confidence. So this petition has merits and deserves to be allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Order of cognizance dated 25.06.2005 as well as proceedings of the entire complaint case no. 102A of 2006 titled as K.P. Dubey Vs. V.K. Jain and others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 15.11.2011 SKS