IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 228 of 2010 L.P. Bhatt S/o late Kula Nand Bhatt R/o Village Bamman Gaon Post Office Jakhauli Lasiya, D istrict Rudraprayag, Uttarkashi. ...…………. Petitioner Versus C.B.I. through Superintendent of C.B.I. Indira Nagar, Seema Dwar, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent C.B.I. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of C.B.I. Case No. 01 of 2010, C.B.I. Vs. L.P. Bhatt and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun. 3) Brief facts of the case are that C.B.I. registered F.I.R. No. RC0072009A0001 against the present petitioner and other co-accused. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are 2 that in the year 2002, the State Government decided to seek Personal Accident Insurance Cover for each member of the self Help Groups under “Swaran Jayanti Swarojgaar Yojna” being run by the Department of Rural Development of the State. For this scheme Memorandum of Understanding was signed between National Insurance Company Limited and the Project Directors of different Districts of the State. Under said scheme different block of different Districts started sending premium collected by them to the Divisional Office of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for brevity hereinafter referred as Company) at Dehradun. On receipt of premium, policies were issued by the Company in favour of the Block Development Officers remitting the premium. The present petitioner was working as a Development Officer in the Chamba Branch of the Company. It is alleged that in order to cheat the Company the present petitioner in connivance with agents Anil Dobhal and Deepak Bhatt, introduced the name of agent Anil Dobhal in the office records to show that Anil Dobhal had procured the business of Group Personal Accident Policy in order to facilitate payment of commission to him. After expiry of the term of Agency of Anil Dobhal in June 2003, the petitioner further dishonestly introduced the name of another agent Deepak Bhatt in the office records to show that he procured the business of Group Personal Accident Policy from the State Government, thereby making him entitled for payment of commission on the premium received by the Company from the Block Development Officers of different Blocks of the State. It is further alleged that the aforesaid agents played no role in the 3 Group Personal Accident Policy at any level, and as such, are not entitled to receive the commission. It is also alleged that the State Government had not issued any written permission in favour of these two agents for introducing the group personal accident insurance business to the Company. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing his official position paid illegal / unauthorized commission to these two agents, using both of them as conduit, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Company and corresponding gain to himself or the agents. It has come during investigation that Anil Dobhal was working as agent under L.P. Bhatt and on the expiry of term of his office Agency, the name of Deepak Bhatt was added as agent on the request of the accused (present petitioner). It has also come during investigation that no role was played by these two agents in procuring the business and collection of premium from self help groups. Infact, the premium was collected by the Block Development Officers. Thus, the two agents had illegally obtained commission on the business for which they had not worked. The investigation thus shows that L.P. Bhatt and the other two co-accused in furtherance of criminal conspiracy had fraudulently and dishonestly obtained a total commission of Rs. 2,06,508 which was not due to them. Total amount of Rs. 2,28,100/- finally landed up in the name of L.P. Bhatt (present petitioner). 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the C.B.I. has registered the F.I.R. without any orders from the State Government or the authority concerned. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the 4 National Insurance Co. Ltd. to whom the matter relates and with which the petitioner was an employee, comes under domain of the C.B.I. under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and the C.B.I. does not require any permission of the State Government. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no informant mentioned in the F.I.R., and merely word ‘information’ has been mentioned, and the proceedings initiated on the basis of such information cannot be sustained. This Court is of the view that it cannot be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings of trial under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that the points pleaded by the petitioner before this Court, can be raised by the petitioner before the trial court during the trial. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 17, 2010. H. Negi