New Delhi [India], October 3 : The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea of a former IAS officer seeking the quashing of an FIR filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a cheating and corruption case while he was Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi.
The CBI registered the FIR in December 2006.
This case pertains to the allegations of freezing of the list and expelling members of a society, namely the Naval Technical Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society, registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS).
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the revision petition moved by Gopal Dikshit and said that there is no illegality or perversity in the Order on Charge of the trial court.
" The material placed on record by the prosecution, including the witness testimonies, the noting in the files of the RCS office, and the Complaint by Lt. Cdr. Hukum Singh, is sufficient to establish a prima facie
case and raise a grave suspicion against the Petitioner for the offences alleged," Justice Krishna said in the judgment on September 26.
The High Court pointed out that the defences raised by the Petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are the subject matter of trial. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Order on Charge of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
" There is no merit in the present Revision Petition, which is hereby dismissed," Justice Krishna ordered.
Petitioner Gopal Dikshit had challenged the order on Charge of 25.10.2013 and Charge dated 29.10.2013 framed under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), by the CBI court.
It was alleged that Petitioner, while serving as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Delhi (RCS) from 09.07.1997 to 11.07.1999, had approved Freeze List of members of the Naval Technical Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society (CGHS) [NTO, CGHS] and also passed an Order expelling members, in violation of the provision of Delhi Co-operative Society Act, 1972 and Delhi Go-operative Society Rules, 1973 (DCS Act and DCS Rules.
A Preliminary Enquiry was undertaken, on which a FIR on 29.12.2006 was registered. The petitioner has moved an Application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. on 05.11.2009, seeking discharge for want of Sanction. However, he did not press the same and sought liberty to take the plea at the stage of arguments on the charge.
The Order on charge was challenged on the ground that the relevant documents of NTO, CGHS came for approval of the Petitioner only after the verification was done by the subordinate officers, namely Inspector, Dealing Assistant (DA), Assistant Registrar (AR), Deputy Registrar (DR) and lastly by the Joint Registrar (JR) of the RCS, Delhi, and the Petitioner had no reason to doubt the acts of all these officials who are presumed to have done their duty honestly and in good faith, unless there are reasons to believe to the contrary.
It was contended that the perusal of the documents filed along with the Chargesheet reflects that, as per the practice established, the documents submitted by the NTO, CGHS, pertaining to the the Freeze List of members, were repeatedly verified by the subordinate officers of the Petitioner and only after thorough verification by them and ensuring all statutory requirements were met, the Freeze List of members was sent to the Petitioner for approval.
On the contrary, the core of the prosecution's case is that the petitioner did not act in good faith; rather, it is alleged that he was a conspirator in a scheme to illegally oust original Members and approve a fraudulent list. The claim of good faith is a defence that must be proven during the trial, and cannot be a threshold bar to the proceedings.
" The alleged act of knowingly approving a manipulated list, which facilitated the illegal removal of members, forms the basis of the conspiracy charge. These circumstances, when viewed collectively, are sufficient to raise a suspicion that the Petitioner was acting in concert with the other co-accused. Therefore, the material on record is sufficient to frame charges for these offences," the High Court said.