Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J., decided a petition wherein it was held that the cases filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the respondents was a mere counterblast case and therefore, it was liable to be quashed.

The petitioner was a daily wage worker in the State Department of Agriculture. A case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that he forged medical certificates and submitted them to the Department. The petitioner filed a complainant in the court below against his co-workers and superiors alleging that they also forged and accepted such certificates. The said case was dismissed by the court below. The grouse of the petitioner was that the case registered against the respondents was not investigated thoroughly, and the evidence given against them was misconstrued and misread.

The High Court perused the record and was of the opinion that the act and conduct of the petitioner amply demonstrate that he went upon to harass and humiliate his fellow labourers and superiors. Therefore, the possibility of the case registered against them at his instance being a counterblast to the case registered against him could not be ruled out. The record further revealed that the petitioner had instituted several cases including contempt proceedings against his Department and the superiors and the same stood dismissed one by one being devoid of any merits even with costs. The present, as such, in the considered opinion of the Court was a case where the petitioner was pursuing the proceedings just to humiliate and harass his superiors and also his fellow labourers, may be, on account of the above referred FIR registered against him at the instance of the Department. In such facts and circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the respondents would be an abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the order of the learned Special Judge was upheld. [Rajinder Bindra v. State of H.P.,  2018 SCC OnLine HP 314, order dated 8.3.2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.