JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. We have heard Shri Zafar Abbas, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed for staying, the petitioners arrest and for quashing the first information. report dated 25.7.2004 lodged by Shri Z.A. Siddiqui, Deputy Director Minority Welfare Department, U.P. at case crime No96o 960 of 2004, under Sections 419/420/466/468/471/409 IPC, police station Kotwali Azamgarh, district Azamgarh.
3. The allegations in the FIR were that in violation of the Government Order dated 8.11.1997, the scholarships meant for the minority students of Class-1 to 5 had been disbursed in cash and not by bearer cheques, which could have resulted in economic loss to the students for the period 1995-96 to 1998-99. The suggestion was that this may have facilitated embezzlement of part of the scholarehip amount meant for the students by departmental officers, Principal of the institutions and others such as the petitioners. This FIR was lodged in pursuance of an enquiry report regarding various schools on the basis of a Government Order dated 7.7.2004.
4. Firstly, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was the Headmaster of M.N. Lal Public School Barohi Jianpur, district Azamgarh and petitioner No. 2 was elected Nagar Kchhetra Member of Jianpur, police station Kotwali, district Azamgarh and they were not named in the FIR, but they have been involved in this case pursuant to the investigation.
5. On the allegations, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed so as to justify quashing of the FIR. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia and is only registered for initiation of the investigation of a case and merely because some of the accused may not have been named initially, as their complicity may have come to light during investigation, can provide no ground for quashing the investigation against them. It has never been the law that if a particular accused is not named in the FIR, then the criminal case against him could not be investigated or that criminal proceedings could not take place against him or that the FIR against that particular accused should necessarily be quashed. Such an interpretation would give rise to an anomalous situation as in that event all FIRs in cases of circumstantial evidence where accused may not have been initially named, would necessarily have to be quashed or the arrest of the accused stayed. This would also amount to interference with the investigation which as has been authoritatively settled in various pronouncements of the Privy Council, Apex Court and this Court, is the prerogative of the police. According to the law reports it has only to be seen whether in a broad sense the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and neither any meticulous examination of the FIR, nor an evaluation of the genuineness of the allegations in the FIR or the eventual probability of conviction is to be gone into at this stage. The following lines from paragraph 11 of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque , deserve to be mentioned here:
In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of 'the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Likewise paragraph 9 of S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat aptly reiterates the same position:
9. We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude, neither is it a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context, however, one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.
(Emphasis supplied).
7. In the present case, the FIR itself mentions that apart from departmental officials, and employees, principals of institutions were also involved, therefore it cannot be said that in a broad sense no offence were not disclosed against the petitioners.
8. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel was that the petitioners were only disbursing the scholarship in pursuance of the letter of the District Minority Officer dated 3.2.2003, who had given such permission to the Principals and others to disburse the scholarship money in cash as the banks were expressing difficulties in disbursing the scholarship amounts by cheques. The learned Counsel drew our attention to annexure 3 which is a letter dated 3.2.03 of the Director Minority Welfare, U.P. which records this fact. However it may be noted that the said District Minority Officer, who had issued such letter, has also been made a co-accused in this case and the petitioners are alleged to have conspired with these officials in this malpractice with the aim of siphoning off funds meant for poor students belonging to the minority community. Therefore, no benefit can accrue to the accused by relying on any such letter or direction.
9. The report dated 22.7.03 (annexure 2 to the writ petition) submitted by the informant, Joint Director, Z.A. Siddiqui and the Joint Director, Hamidullah who conducted a random physical verification of the concerned schools on 16.7.03, which formed the basis for the FIR, found that no students were physically present at the time of inspection. There were conflicting versions of receipt and non-receipt of the scholarship amounts by concerned students and there was also a violation of the G.O. dated 9.7.03 which prohibited disbursement of the scholarship amounts in cash. These questions of fact can only be examined in depth during investigation and trial, and can provide no ground for quashing of the FIR. The FIR has been lodged pursuant to the Government Order dated 7.7.2004 because there had been a major scam in distribution of scholarship amounts meant for poor students and it is indeed extremely shocking that the petty sums meant for distribution amongst students have been misappropriated by the departmental officials, Principals and others.
10. It was further submitted that the students have given affidavits before the S.P. Azamgarh that they have received the scholarship amounts in the concerned period, some of which affidavits have been annexed to this writ petition.
11. It is not unusual that officials, Principals and others accused when they are faced with such difficulties are able to persuade victims to give such affidavits and in any case such affidavits pertain to the matter of defence and they cannot be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection in State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCO 540, it has been aptly observed by the Apex Court as follows:
14. It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal , it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court Should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 CrPC, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The same position applies a fortiori to a writ petition for quashing of an FIR.
13. It was further argued that arrest of the co-accused Abu Mohammad, Senior Inspector, Waqf, had been stayed in writ petition No. 6227 of 2004 till the next date of listing and in writ petition No. 6594 of 2004, the arrest of co-accused Bhaskar Datt Dubey, District Minority Welfare Officer, Azamgarh, (who was accused in the FIR) had been stayed till submission of charge sheet by a final order and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the investigating officer to conclude the investigation within three months on 25.8.04. Subsequently, the arrest of another co-accused Raj Bahadur Singh had been stayed by an order dated 29.3.2006 passed in writ petition No. 3558 of 2006. This petition had also been disposed of finally at the initial stage with a direction to the investigating officer to conclude the investigation within three months.
14. In our opinion, because of such orders that had been passed at interim stages and investigation in a scam involving scholarships remain stayed for long period of time which gives a very negative social message as it can lead to erosion of the faith of the general public in our judicial and democratic system.
15. In this view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR and for staying of his arrest is devoid of force.
16. Before parting we must note that an alarming fact has come to light that in spite of orders directing expeditious disposal of investigations, and even orders fixing time periods for concluding the investigation no steps are being taken by investigating officers for concluding the investigations as directed. In other cases where arrests are stayed, but there is no interference with the investigation, no investigation is done whether the petition is pending or has been finally disposed of.
17. We hope that this lack of interest is not because the investigating officer feels that after filing of the writ petition, he has no further "interest" left in the case, as now the accused will only be summoned or warrants issued on Court's orders, and there will be little scope for "manipulation" by the investigating officer. If this is the reason for the indifference shown by the investigating officers in concluding the investigations, including in such grave matters involving scams pertaining to public money meant for distribution to the deprived or weaker sections, it would be singularly unfortunate.
18. We note that in the instant case as far back as 13.8.04 an order was passed in the case of a co-accused Bhaskar Datt Dubey in Cr. Writ No. 6594 of 2004, disposing of the petition finally with a direction to conclude the investigation within 3 months if possible, and in the meantime until the submission of the charge sheet the arrest of the petitioner therein was to remain stayed. Although two years ,have elapsed thereafter there appears to have been no progress in the investigation. In Cr. Writ No. 3558 of 2006 preferred by co-accused Raj Bahadur Singh and another an order was passed on 29.3.06 finally disposing of the petition with the directions to conclude the investigation within three months. But again nothing appears to have been done.
19. We therefore issue the following directions:
1. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR and for staying his arrest is rejected.
2. The investigating officer is directed to positively conclude the investigation of this case as well as other cases arising out of the same Crime Number, and FIR at case crime No. 960 of 2004, under Sections 419/420/466/468/471/409 IPC, police station Kotwali Azamgarh, district Azamgarh within two months.
3. The case is to be listed again on 7.12.2006. On that date the investigating officer shall be present in Court along with the case diary, indicating the progress of the investigation of this case. He shall also submit an explanation as to why the investigation was not concluded in spite of orders of this Court dated 25.8.04 and 29.3.06 directing him to conclude the investigation within three months.
4. The Director General of Police, U.P. is directed to submit a status report of the progress of investigation in all cases in different police stations in the State of U.P., or where investigation was entrusted to other agencies such as the CB CID and where orders were passed by this Court for conclusion of investigation within three months or other fixed periods of time, on the next date of listing.
5. The DGP is also directed to issue directions to the S.S.P.s, S.P.s of all districts in U.P to get investigations concluded in all cases in which writ petitions have been filed and are pending in the High Court or have been disposed of, within a fixed time frame, and to submit a compliance report on the next date of listing.
6. The DGP is also directed to obtain information from the police stations, the office of the Government Advocate and the High Court registry about all criminal writs and other cases relating to different kinds of scams, such as scholarship scam as in the present case, scams relating to land deals, arms licenses, etc. and to get the cases relating to each kind of scam clubbed and to get their investigation concluded expeditiously within a fixed time frame. The DGP may submit a report showing the steps taken in compliance with this direction on the next date of listing.
7. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in writ petitions No. 6227 of 2004, (Abu Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Ors.), 6594 of 2004 (Bhaskar Datt Dubey v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and 3558 of 2006 (Raj Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) at an early date.
20. List on 7.12.2006 for further hearing and directions.
21. Copy of this order may be given to the learned AGA within 48 hours for compliance.