HARDEI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 186 of 2016, Judgment Date: Mar 30, 2016

It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R.  may  not  contain
all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused.   It
is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts  already  known.   There
are varities of crimes and by their very nature, details of some crimes  can
be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation.  This is more  true
in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or cases  not  founded  on
eye witness accounts.  The fact that Police chose not to send up  a  suspect
to face trial does not affect power of the trial court under Section 319  of
the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on account of evidence  recorded  during
trial.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014]

Hardei …..Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 29.01.2014 by the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing Criminal Revision No.2554/2013
preferred by the appellant seeking relief against order dated 09.07.2013
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, the trial Court, summoning
the appellant, in exercise of power under Section 319, Code of Criminal
Procedure, to face trial in Sessions Trial No.9191 of 2010 (State Vs. Omkar
& Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.1364 of 2010 under Sections
420/467/468/471/409, IPC pertaining to Police Station Amadpur, District
Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant facts may be noted
in brief. The FIR bearing No. 53 of 2010 leading to this case was lodged
on 20th July 2010 by R.D. Sharma, the Project Director of a scheme under
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereinafter
referred to as ‘MNREGA’ Scheme). One Rahul Yadav, a Junior Clerk in the
Amroha Block Office and one Omkar Singh were named as accused with
allegation that they had, as per enquiry report, prima facie embezzled an
amount to the tune of Rs.49 Lacs from official account for the MNREGA
Scheme, thereby attracting offence under Section 409 IPC.
In the Special Leave Petition there is reference to another FIR bearing No.
50 of 2010 dated 16th July, 2010 lodged by one Mr. Muneshwar Singh, Block
Development Officer, Gangeshwari, (J.P. Nagar). In this FIR the same Rahul
Yadav, Junior Clerk alone has been named as an accused with allegation of
cheating and embezzlement in respect of an amount of Rs.25 lacs of MNREGA.
However, in course of further hearing it was made clear by learned counsel
for the appellant that the present proceeding does not arise from this FIR
and the whole purpose of annexing a copy of this FIR was to draw attention
of this Court to allegations to the affect that the appellant although
signed cheques for withdrawal of money from MNREGA account, she was
innocent and had been cheated by Rahul Yadav.
The written notes of arguments on behalf of the appellant also clarify that
the instant proceedings arise only out of FIR No. 53 of 2010 leading to
Crime No. 1364 of 2010. The first charge-sheet dated 3.10.2010 was only
against Omkar Singh and the other was filed subsequently against accused
Rahul Yadav, after he surrendered.
The criminal case progressed as Trial No. 9191 of 2010 and after some
witnesses had been examined, an application under Section 319 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Prosecution on 4.7.2013. The
application discloses that the case was fixed for evidence and prosecution
had already examined five witnesses including PW-1, R.D. Sharma. On the
basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded in the course of trial,
it was urged in the application that involvement of Muneshwar Singh, the
then Block Development Officer and the appellant Smt. Hardei, the then
Block Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Gangeshwari had emerged and such
materials were also available in the statement of concerned witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. The prayer to
summon both of them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was considered by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha. He, after noticing in particular the
statement made by R.D. Sharma as P.W.1, came to the conclusion that prima
facie offence was made against both the proposed accused and hence the
application was allowed by order passed on 9th July, 2013. As already
noticed, the High Court affirmed the order of the Magistrate by rejecting
Criminal Revision preferred by the appellant on 29.1.2014 and that order
has given rise to the present appeal.
Mr. R. K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant has relied heavily upon
the fact that the appellant was not named as an accused in the FIR nor any
charge-sheet was submitted against her after completion of investigation.
He further submitted that the amount has been embezzled mainly by accused
Rahul Yadav and Omkar Singh and therefore, the defence of the appellant
that she was illiterate lady who does not know even to sign much less
reading or writing should have been accepted by the Magistrate and the High
Court. It was pointed out that in the FIR lodged by co-accused Muneshwar
Singh against Rahul Yadav, the defence of the appellant was clearly spelt
out.
Learned counsel for the State of U.P., on the other hand supported the
summoning order of Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the order under
appeal by the High Court. According to him, there is no denial of the fact
that along with Muneshwar Singh, this appellant was the co-signatory and
only with their signatures money could be withdrawn from the MNREGA
account; therefore, in such a situation the statement emerging from the
deposition of the complainant/informant R.D. Sharma, P.W.1 that amounts
used to be withdrawn jointly by the appellant and the Muneshwar Singh, the
Block Development Officer and hence they are also answerable for the
embezzlement of the concerned amount could not have been ignored at the
present stage in anticipation of defence of the appellant that she is
illiterate and cannot sign her name and that she was duped or cheated by co-
accused Rahul Yadav.
Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, we find no
good reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. may not contain
all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused. It
is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts already known. There
are varities of crimes and by their very nature, details of some crimes can
be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation. This is more true
in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or cases not founded on
eye witness accounts. The fact that Police chose not to send up a suspect
to face trial does not affect power of the trial court under Section 319 of
the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on account of evidence recorded during
trial. This is the factual scenario in the case at hand also.

It would not be proper for us to deal with detailed merits of the
prosecution case or the defence case at this juncture. Hence, while
dismissing the appeal, we make it clear that the observations made in the
impugned orders or this order shall not have any adverse effect on the case
of either of the parties. It is also made clear that the appellant shall
be at liberty to take all the defence available to her, in accordance with
law, in course of the trial. The appeal stands dismissed with the
aforesaid observations.

…………………………………….J.
[DIPAK MISRA]

……………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
March 30, 2016.
-----------------------
6

Back to Judgments