Criminal Misc.-M No.35980 of 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Prithvi Raj Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an employee of a Company, namely, M/s KMP Express Way, which he joined in April, 2006. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Manager (HR). M/s KMP Express Way (respondent No.2) entered into an agreement with Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) for construction of a road under Kundli-Manesar Project. One Sudhir Kumar Mittal was appointed as Senior General Manager (HR). As per the petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Mittal was solely made responsible for engaging the labour contractors for carrying out the work for which the company was engaged by HSIDC. As per the allegations, Sudhir Kumar Mittal used to engage any labour contractor and employ number of persons Criminal Misc.-M No.35980 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : for carrying out the job for the organisation. He alone was fully competent and responsible for disbursement of payment after checking the attendance register of the employees. The salaries of the employees of the contractors were being released from M/s D.S.Construction Ltd. The company had started engaging labour contractors in the month of April, 2006. Sudhir Kumar Mittal employed three labour contractors, namely, M/s Himalaya Agencies, M/s Aman Associates and M/s Beads Services for carrying out the works at the site. In April, 2008, some discrepancies and irregularities were noticed in the accounts department of the company, where from the salaries of the employees were disbursed by Sudhir Kumar Mittal. Enquiry revealed that Sudhir Kumar Mittal used to prepare attendance sheet in his office and used to give the same to the contractors and thereafter the contractor would prepare the wage-sheet for payment and would make the payment to the workers at each site. The attendance sheet and the wage sheet were falsely prepared time and again and, therefore, the wages were taken by Sudhir Kumar Mittal from the labour contractors on the pretext that unpaid wages would be paid to the persons directly. It is alleged that for that purpose, he used to fabricate and forge the payment vouchers. Even those employees who were not engaged to work by the contractor, but their salary was being disbursed every month. This amount was so used by Sudhir Kumar Mittal for his personal gains. On a complaint made, FIR No.249 dated 14.10.2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 477, 120-B IPC has been registered against Sudhir Kumar Mittal at Police Station Udyog Vihar Criminal Misc.-M No.35980 of 2011 (O&M) : 3 : District Gurgaon. The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Manager, has also been charge-sheeted alongwith Sudhir Kumar Mittal for having conspired with him to this forgery and other such allegations made. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in fact is a witness in this case and has been termed as an accused without any basis and material on record. The charges have been framed against the petitioner alongwith Sudhir Kumar Mittal. The submission that charges have been framed without discussing material that may be available against the petitioner would not have much force. The trial Magistrate has heard the arguments on the point of charge and after perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. alongwith the relevant documents, had found a prima-facie case against the petitioner as well. Obviously, the petitioner is being termed as an accused in this case on account of conspiracy and the charge under Section 120-B IPC has also been framed in this case. The submission that only weak type of evidence of a so-called confession before a Constable by the petitioner was not sufficient to frame a charge is also without any substance. It would not be a ground for quashing proceedings against the petitioner. He has so far not even made any move to challenge the charge-sheet, which has been framed against him. Accordingly, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. November 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE