1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T Ram Avtar Vijay & anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1377/2007. UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20th APRIL, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr. Amit Jindal for the petitioners. Mr. Bhuvnish Kumawat Public Prosecutor for State of Rajasthan. BY THE COURT: This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota arising out of FIR No.138/1987, police station Nayapura, Kota. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Satya Narayan, Deputy Manager of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota filed a written report before the police station Nayapura, Kota on 2nd May, 1987 alleging therein that Sohan Lal, booking clerk, has embezzled a sum of Rs.3,08,900/- by selling tickets. The petitioners being Accountant and Junior Accountant at the relevant time, have neglected the performance of their duty, therefore, they have also committed an offence under section 409, 120-B and 109 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed 2 against the accused-petitioners and others under section 409 read with 109 IPC. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused-petitioners under section 409 and 109 IPC. One of the accused Abdul Haq Ansari, feeling aggrieved of the order framing charge, approached this court and this court in S.B. Crivminal Revision Petition Nos.173/94, 174/94, 176/94 and 178/94 vide its order dated 24th May, 1995 while allowing the revision petitions quashed the charges framed against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the material available on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel that in all four revision petitions were filed and all those revision petitions were allowed by this court. According to the learned counsel, at best it could be a case where some negligence could be attributed to the petitioners while they were discharging their duties in the capacity of Accountant and Junior Accountant in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation but then with the aid of section 109 IPC, it cannot be said that they committed any offence punishable under section 409 IPC. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that Abdul Haq Ansari's case decided by this court squarely covers the matter in issue before this court. Learned counsel in this connection has placed before me the photo-stat copy of the order passed by this court in the case of Abdul Haq Ansari Vs. State of Rajasthan-1995 RCC 3 433. It has also been contended that since last 22 years the petitioners are facing agony of trial and they are now at the verge of their retirement. At least after such a long delay of 22 years and further taking into consideration the fact that on exactly similar charge other co-accused Abdul Haq Ansari against whom charge was framed u/s 409 read with 109 IPC, the charge against him has been quashed, therefore, the case of the petitioners requires consideration and proceedings pending against the accused-petitioners requires to be quashed. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel and submitted that on account of negligence on the part of the petitioners, Sohan Lal one of the accused embezzled a sum of Rs.3,08,900/-, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not helped in aiding to commit the offence. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing which reads as under: “107- Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a 'thing' who- First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or; Thirdly- Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 4 In the light of section 107 IPC, from the accusation made against accused-petitioners, it does not appear that at any point of time there was any assistance rendered by the petitioners to commit the offence. It also does not appear that the petitioners had intention to aid one of the co-accused Sohan Lal to commit the offence. The only allegation is that they did not supervise properly. If that be so, then in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under section 409 IPC. It further appears that in the similar set of facts and in the similar FIR, co-accused Abdul Haq Ansari has been granted relief by this court, therefore, considering the matter from this angle, I find that it is a fit case where the proceedings pending against the accused-petitioners require to be quashed as it is an abuse of the process of law and the charge framed against the accused- petitioners requires to be quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds, the charge framed against the accused-petitioners namely Ram Avtar Vijay son of Shri Ram Niwas and Satya Narayan son of Shri Tara Chand under section 409/109 IPC by the trial court vide its order dated 6.11.1993 is hereby quashed. (S.P.PATHAK) J.