Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : .2011 Dr. Damyanti Sharma and another ......Petitioners versus The Haryana Yog Sabha (Regd.) ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have sought quashing of complaint No. 28 of 2009 titled as Haryana Yog Sabha vs. Damyanti Sharma and another, dated 16.06.2000, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') (Annexure P15) and all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and the order dated 5/7.12.2009 (Annexure P17 colly) and the order dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure P18) passed by the learned JMIC, Karnal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal respectively. On 17.12.2005 the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal decided to allot land measuring 1354 sq. meters in Sector 7, Karnal for construction of Divya Yog Mandir on lease hold basis for 99 years. Thereafter, land was allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 06.06.1996 (Annexure Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -2- P2). The petitioners were associated with Swami Devi Dayal since 1972. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Manager/Sanchalika of the Divya Yog Mandir, Sector 7 Karnal and since the year 1995, she has been imparting the education of Yoga to the devotees of Swami Devi Dayal and the general public and is managing and running the affairs of Devi Yog Mandir, Karnal. Petitioner No. 2 is also a devotee of Swami Devi Dayal and since the year 1967, he has been working as Yog Acharya and has been imparting Yoga Education. On 01.08.1988, Swamdi Devi Dayal died and after his death, his sons entered into litigation among themselves, each claiming himself to be the only legal heir of Swami Devi Dayal and entitled to possession of the temples situated at different places of India. They are claiming exclusive ownership of the property of various Yog Sabhas at different places. Respondent had passed a resolution on 23.08.1988 (Annexure P3) . As per this resolution, the members of the Executive Committee of the Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal were appointed and it was further resolved that petitioner No. 1, Dr. Damyanti Sharma who has been the disciple of Swami Devi Dayal since 1972 has been managing and is the Incharge/Manager of the Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal since 1995 and thus it was resolved that petitioner No. 1 will keep managing and running the Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal as before and with majority consent. It was further resolved to appoint petitioner No. 1 as the Acharya of the Divya Yog Mandir by majority consent. Vide letter dated 22.08.1998 (Annexure P4), the respondent gave the authority to operate the bank account of the Divya Yog Mandir. Vide Annexure P5, the petitioners along with two officer bearers have been authorised to operate the bank accounts of Haryana Yog Sabha, Karnal. Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Thereafter, under the Local Development Work Programme of the Government of Haryana vide letter dated10.02.1988, a grant of Rs.11,000/- was sanctioned by the State Government for purchase of Yoga equipments for Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal. Similarily, vide government letter dated 30.04.1999, another grant of Rs.21,000/- was sanctioned in favour of Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal for the purchase of Yoga equipment to promote Yoga Education amongst the people of Karnal and surrounding areas. For the proper utilisation of the above grant, respective agreements dated 03.03.1999 and 11.5.1999 were executed between petitioner No. 1 as Manager Divya Yog Mandir and Shri Shish Pal Mehta, Industries Minister, Haryana (Annexures P6 and P7). Thereafter, the petitioner was named as guarantor on behalf of Divya Yog Mandir and after the execution of the above agreements, the amount of grants were received by petitioner by way of cheques of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.21,000/- (Annexures P8 and P9). Thereafter, a false and frivolous complaint was made by one member of Haryana Yog Sabha, respondent namely, Prof. M. Lal against the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnala alleging that the amount of grants of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.21,000/- has not been properly utilised by the petitioners and has been misappropriated. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that during the pre-charge evidence, the enquiry report dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure P10) which was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal has not been considered while passing the order dated 05.12.2009 (Annexure P17 Colly) for framing of charge under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the order dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure P18) whereby the revision against the order dated Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 05.12.2009 has been dismissed. While referring to the report (Annexure P10), it has been found that the enquiry was conducted in the month of May with regard to amount of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.21,000/- given to the above Institution by the then Industries Minister, Shri Shish Pal Mehta from his discretionary quota. The Institution has only purchased necessary items/equipment from the amount of grant under due receipt in accordance with Rules from authorised dealers and the photocopies of the concerned bills etc. were annexed. The Institution has spent a sum of Rs.36,000/- approximately against the amount of Rs.32,000/- Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Professor is a greedy person who wants to treat the property as personal property. He has further argued that at the time of framing of charges, both the Courts below have ignored the inquiry report (Annexure P10). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placee reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others, 2008(4) RCR 924 and contends that High Court under inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 CrP.C can examine material presented by the defence at the time of framing of charges. After appreciating evidence, if it comes out that no offence was made out then the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner is guilty of preparing bogus records in order to withdraw the grant money which was given by the then Industries Minister for Divya Yog Mandir. Reference has been made to letter dated 15.02.1999 (Annexure R-3) made by the petitioner to the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Haryana Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -5- for cancellation of Divya Yog Abhyas Mandi, registered by them. Vide letter dated 18.03.1999 (Annexure R-5), the society was cancelled by the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana. The grant was received by the petitioner on 04.03.1999 and 21.06.1999 and after cancellation of the society, the cheque dated 21.06.19999 could not be deposited in the account opened by the society. In the pre charge evidence. 10 witnesses have been examined and departmental evidence has been placed on record. Thereafter, the charges were framed on 07.12.2009 (Annexure P17) . The revision against this order has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure P-18). The second revision under Section 482 is not maintainable. On this preposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ganesh Narayan Hedge v. Shri S. Bangarappa and others, JT 1995 (4) S.C 124 that at the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case was required to seen, details of meticulous reference of evidence is not required. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgments of Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2007(1) RCR Criminal, 305 and Balraj Kumar vs. Smt Kuldeep Kaur, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 185. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After going through the facts of the present case, the only point for consideration is that whether there was prima facie evidence of misappropriating the grant of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.21,000/- sanctioned to the petitioner for Divya Yog Mandir and material evidence was ignored while framing the charge-sheet. Undisputedly, the petitioner was named as guarantor on behalf of Divya Yog Mandir. After the grant was received by the petitioner by way Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -6- of cheques (Annexure P8 and P9) agreements dated 03.03.1999 and 11.05.1999 were executed between the petitioner No. 1 as Manager Divya Yog Mandir and Sh Shish Pal Mehta, Industries Minister, Haryana. As per the enquiry report dated 03.12.2003 of the District Social Welfare Officer, Karnal (Annexure P10), it has been found that as per the Memorandum of Association sanctioned by the Registrar Societies that Dr. Damyanti Sharma is the president of the above Institution. She has withdrawn the amount from the Bank as President of the Institution and no misappropriation of the fund has been proved. Since 1998 till date of this report i.e 02.12.2003, the Institution has purchased different equipments, worth Rs. 36,728/-. Photocopy of bill are also enclosed as Flag 'A'. No unnecessary articles have been purchased. The purchase have been made after the resolution has been passed by the members of the Executive Sabha (Flag 'B'). An attempt was being by Prof M. Lal to treat the property of the Institution as his personal property and he wants to use the Institution for earning the money as a business. There is no irregularity in withdrawing the amount from the bank and purchase of articles etc from the Institution. Surprisingly, this report has not been considered while framing the charges against the petitioners. She had received the money as grant in her capacity as Manager of Divya Yog Mandir, as is evident from Annexures P6 and P7. Receipts have been issued by her (Annexures P8 and P9) as Manager of Divya Yog Mandir, Karnal. As per the enquiry report (Annexure P10), no irregularity has been found in utilisation of the said grant. The certificate has been given by the Industries Minister, Haryana certifying that since the Divya Yog Mandir, Sector 7, Karnal is running properly since the year 1995, so grant of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.21,000/- was Crl. Misc.No. M- 21377 of 2010 (O&M) -7- granted (Annexure P11). Vide Annexure P12, Shish Pal Mehta has given an affidavit that he is satisfied that the money given to petitioner No. 1 has been properly used. As per the enquiry report of Tehsil, Karnal which was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, it was found that there was no irregularity found in the utilisation of amount. In the facts of the present case, the Court was required to access the evidence specially the enquiry report (Annexure P10) while framing charge against the petitioner. The crucial document has been ignored by the Court In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that in the present case, there was sufficient material at the time of precharge evidence to enable the Court below to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint filed by Ashok Kumar in the capacity of Secretary of Haryana Yog Sabha (Regd) was malafide with oblique motive and the allegations against the petitioners are absurd and concocted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the complaint No. 28 of 2009 titled as Haryana Yog Sabha vs. Damyanti Sharma and another, dated 16.06.2000, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC (Annexure P15) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE June , 2011 G.Arora