Crl. Misc. No. M-34890 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34890 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.9.2011. Raj Kumar Raghav and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 03 dated 02.1.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including the order dated 06.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were found innocent during departmental inquiry and hence, qua the same allegations the criminal proceedings against the petitioners could not continue. The petitioners were found innocent during investigation and had Crl. Misc. No. M-34890 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - been summoned to face the trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature and hence, the criminal proceedings were liable to continue against them. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The prosecution story in brief is that on checking it was found that there was shortage of plantation carried in Raoli Panchayat land in the year 2002-2003. The concerned officials had committed embezzlement. After thorough investigation of the case, challan was presented against the accused Sita Ram and Din Dayal. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face the trial. Vide order dated 06.9.2010, the trial court allowed the said application. Annexure P-6 is the inquiry submitted by the inquiry office after inquiring into the charges of embezzlement and negligence levelled against the petitioners. The inquiry officer vide his report has held as under:- “No role was defined for ROs in the guidelines of National Afforestation Programme. As in their traditional role they are supposed to do everything whatever forestry activities are carried out in their ranges, they could not do so because financial powers were vested with foresters. Because of this their role was taken over by foresters/Block Officers. Crl. Misc. No. M-34890 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - As a result of this the Ros did not have any control on spending. Hence I have reached to a conclusion that charges framed against Sh. Satish Kumar RO and Raj Kumar Raghav RO can not be proved.” Thus, qua the same charges, the petitioners were found innocent during departmental proceedings. It has been held by the Apex Court in 'P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar 1996 (4) SCT 21', as under:- “At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.” Since in the present case, the petitioners had been Crl. Misc. No. M-34890 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - found innocent during departmental proceedings qua the same allegations, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.9.2010 is set aside and consequently, the application moved by the prosecution to summon the petitioners to face the trail as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 Gurpreet