2023 (8) TMI 1386 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal breach of trust - deficiency of currency notes in the currency chest - HELD THAT - In order to prove the offence under Section 409 of the IPC, the prosecution is undoubted to prove that the accused, public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property which he is duly bound to account for and that he committed criminal breach of trust - The finding in the departmental proceeding indicates that the petitioner was not entrusted the property. Thus, the basic ingredients of offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC is lacking. In addition thereof, there is ten years of yawning and unexplained gap for registration of the FIR. No doubt, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC the complaint / FIR has to be read as a whole. However, if reading of the FIR as a whole does not constitute the elements of alleged offence, the Court owes the duty to scuttle such vexatious proceedings. FIR being I CR No. 80 of 2016 registered with Dehgam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 114 of the IPC and the further proceedings arising out thereof are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of FIR for offences under Sections 409 and 114 of the IPC.
2. Delay in lodging the FIR.
3. Impact of departmental inquiry findings on criminal proceedings.
4. Legal principles regarding simultaneous adjudication and criminal prosecution.

Summary:

Quashment of FIR for offences under Sections 409 and 114 of the IPC:
The petitioner sought the quashment of FIR No. 80 of 2016 registered with Dehgam Police Station for offences under Sections 409 and 114 of the IPC. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Manager (Accounts) at SBI, Dehgam Branch, was accused alongside the Head Cash Officer of failing to account for a deficit of Rs. 4,52,500/- found during a surprise check by the Nodal Office, SBI, Ahmedabad.

Delay in lodging the FIR:
The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged ten years after the incident, without proper explanation for the delay. The court noted that the FIR was filed at the insistence of the RBI, despite the SBI's initial reluctance to initiate criminal proceedings. The delay and the circumstances surrounding the filing of the FIR were critical in considering the petition.

Impact of departmental inquiry findings on criminal proceedings:
The court referred to the departmental inquiry findings, which exonerated the petitioner from allegations of fraud and noted that no monetary loss occurred to the bank as the deficit was recovered. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not entrusted with the property, a necessary element to prove the offence under Section 409 of the IPC. The court also highlighted the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings, which did not support the continuation of criminal prosecution.

Legal principles regarding simultaneous adjudication and criminal prosecution:
The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that criminal prosecution cannot continue if the individual is exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts. The court reiterated that higher standards of proof are required in criminal cases and that vexatious proceedings should be scuttled if the FIR does not constitute the elements of the alleged offence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the FIR and subsequent proceedings lacked the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 409 of the IPC and were filed after an unexplained delay. The petition was allowed, and the FIR No. 80 of 2016 registered with Dehgam Police Station, along with further proceedings, was quashed and set aside.