The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quashed the FIR filed the petitioner, Secretary of Red Cross and ruled that the commission of irregularities by the Secretary of Red Cross is criminal misconduct by public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR made under Sections 409 of IPC (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The gist of the FIR is that petitioner No.1, Manoranjan Sharmawho was Secretary of Red Cross,was instrumental in getting an order in favour of his own daughter pertaining to supply of sanitary napkins and various irregularities were found in the manner in which this contract was awarded.
The Counsel for the petitioner submits that that there is delay in lodging the FIR in as much as while the tender for purchase of sanitary napkins had been floated in June 2019 and the same were supplied by November 2019, the instant FIR came to be lodged belatedly i.e. in the year 2023.
The Counsel further contended that that there is no such allegation that the articles in question were not delivered and that the articles in question were not of the approved quality.
A perusal of the FIR clearly show that very specific, unambiguous and crisp allegations have been levelled to the effect that petitioner No.1, who was Secretary of Red Cross, Narnaul was instrumental in getting an order in favour of his own daughter pertaining to supply of sanitary napkins and that various irregularities were found in the manner in which this contract was awarded.
The Court of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill observed that “Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there are several irregularities committed in the process of awarding an order to a firm owned by daughter of petitioner No.1 which apparently has been done so as to extend an undue favour to petitioner No.2 daughter of petitioner No.1, who was the Secretary, Red Cross.”
The Bench concluded by noting that the facts stated in FIR do prima-facie disclose commission of offences. The facts in any case do not warrant invoking of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR at this initial stage.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
