Delhi court dismisses revision petition against magisterial court order to register FIR in alleged embezzlement case

Deprecating the approach of the state government to oppose the directions of the magisterial court, the court said "it is incomprehensible as to why the state seems to be so averse to an effort to bring the skeletons behind the closet to see the light of the day."

New Delhi: A Delhi court, while dismissing a revision petition against an order of a magisterial court to register an FIR in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) officials, has requested the Joint Commissioner of Police concerned to ensure a fair, impartial and expeditious probe.

Deprecating the approach of the state government to oppose the directions of the magisterial court, the court said "it is incomprehensible as to why the state seems to be so averse to an effort to bring the skeletons behind the closet to see the light of the day." The court was hearing the revision petition by Kuldeep Singh, a treasurer in MCD, who said that the order of the magisterial court was not sustainable.

"Considering the intricacies involved in the labyrinth of allegations, I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order dated May 1, 2019. The instant revision petition is bereft of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed," Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana said in a recent order.

The court noted that the complainant Guddi Devi, a former MCD councillor, came to know about specific incidents of embezzlement of public funds in the Civil Lines Zone and raised the issue before the wards committee and house. An audit committee investigated the allegations and found around Rs 97.64 lakh as embezzled by MCD employees and after the committee's objections, Singh deposited around Rs 83.74 lakh, the court noted.

It also noted that when the police failed to initiate any action, Guddi Devi filed a complaint in the magisterial court, which then directed the SHO concerned to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Against the court's order, Singh filed the present revision petition, the court noted. Rejecting the argument that the magisterial court did not specify the sections under which the FIR was to be registered, the court said it was desirable, but not mandatory for the magisterial court to specify the sections.

"No statutory requirement casting such a duty has been brought to my notice...Further, there may be cases wherein the reported facts are in a nebulous state and it is almost impossible for the trial court to pinpoint the exact section in such a nascent stage," the judge said. If the trial court is convinced that the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence warranting a thorough probe, there is nothing wrong with the direction to register an FIR without specifying the sections, the court said.

"The primordial (original) complaint reveals the commission of the offence of (criminal) breach of trust but the allegations with respect to the offence of cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts etc. (which) need a thorough probe," the court said. The court said that Guddi Devi being a public representative was not only empowered but in fact, duty-bound to ensure that public money is not embezzled by public officials.

"It has been attempted to be argued that the complainant was on inimical terms with the senior officers of MCD therefore, she has moved a motivated complaint. However, there is no rule of law or prudence providing that only a person in cahoot with the perpetrator of the offence can approach the court," the court said.

It said that in cases where a public servant was "misutilizing his powers" for "self-advancement or self-aggrandizement", he cannot claim immunity from being prosecuted. The court said that the magisterial court did not lack the inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application.

"The court is in pains to observe that the conduct of the state in the case in hand is intriguingly inscrutable... It is incomprehensible as to why the state seems to be so averse to an effort to bring the skeletons behind the closet to see the light of the day," the judge said. He further said the public prosecutor was making an "all-out effort" to negate the attempt of the magisterial court to "remove the stink".

"The state instead of supporting the efforts to clean the rot went on to appoint a special public prosecutor to oppose the directions of the trial court. The approach of the state is really unfortunate, to say the least," the judge said. "Evidently, the allegations are against senior officers of MCD and the matter pertains to the year 2017-2018, therefore, I deem it appropriate that the matter needs to be brought to the notice of higher echelons of Delhi Police," the judge added.

The court then directed a copy of the order be sent to the Joint Commissioner of Police concerned, with "a request to ensure a fair, impartial and expeditious probe" in the matter, including the role of the concerned police officials. The court also directed a copy of the order be sent to the magisterial court concerned for monitoring the investigation and to "ensure a fair and expeditious probe". (PTI)