JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AGA.
2. This application has been filed for quashing charge-sheet dated 7.10.2007 filed by the investigating officer against the applicant in Case Crime No. 146C of 2007, under Sections 420/465/466/468/471 IPC, PS Soraon, District Allahabad.
3 The allegations in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was filed by Shamim Banu, widow of Raziuddin on 23.11.2006 were that the complainant, opposite party No. 2, had an Antyodaya ration card which was prepared by the pradhan and the gram panchayat vikas adhikari. The serial number of the complainant's ration card was 116 and the card No. 15096. In place of the complainant's name, the name of Mohd. Shamshad was entered on account of a conspiracy hatched by Vakil Ahmad and others. Vakil Ahmad was the gram pradhan, who verified the photograph of Shamshad Ahmad enabling Shamshad Ahmad to draw rations on the said forged ration card, depriving the complainant who was a poor widow with no other source of livelihood, from her entitlement for ration under the Antyodaya ration card scheme. The applicant, Shamshad on the other hand, was a wealthy person who possesses a kerana shop. The complainant had given several complaints about her illegal deprivation of the ration card on the Tehsil Diwas and Janata Diwasbut the CRO had only directed the BDO to look into the matter and no FIR was registered. Thereafter, the complainant approached the SSP concerned but even then when no action was taken she was constrained to lodge the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
It appears that on the basis of the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the FIR was directed to be registered by an order of the Addl. Civil Judge (JD)/JM, Court No. 7, Allahabad on 24.3.07. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 2.4.2007 at PS Soraon, Allahabad. Initially a charge-sheet was filed on 25.6.2007 against Mohd. Shamshad and Vakil Ahmad only and thereafter on 7.10.07 the present impugned charge-sheet was filed against the applicant, who was the village development officer, block Soraon, Allahabad.
4. It was contended by the learned Counsel or the applicant that since a counter affidavit has been filed, some time may be given to him to file a rejoinder affidavit. Looking to the nature of allegations where the act of the applicant is so debased that even a ration card meant for the poorest of the poor, in this case a widow, has been taken away by Shamshad in collusion with the gram pradhan, Vakil Ahmad and others, I do not think there is any justification for allowing any further time for filing a rejoinder affidavit to the applicant. It is singularly unfortunate that our social fiber has fallen so low now that individuals and even government servants (like the applicant) have no qualms whatsoever even in depriving the poorest of the poor, widows, students, old people, girl children, persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and poor minorities, the disabled of the limited benefits that are conferred on them under the State's welfare programmes. Therefore time has come for this Court to come down with a heavy hand when such crimes against the poorest of the poor and the otherwise deprived or vulnerable are brought to its notice, because ultimately the quality of a civilization is meaured by its treatment of the poor, deprived and the otherwise vulnerable, and on this index sadly the rating of our society has fallen abysmally low.
5. It was further submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant only on 7.10.2007, which was about 2 1/2 months from the date of filing of the earlier charge-sheet, which was submitted against Shamshad and Vakil Ahmad. I do not think there is any impediment for the investigation being continued after a charge-sheet has been filed and filing of a subsequent charge-sheet in the same crime in view of the procedure laid down in Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C as emphasized by the Apex Court in Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi AIR 2002 SC 441. It is clearly a case of fraud of a despicable nature which could not have been committed without the collusion of persons like the applicant, who was a Sachiv of the block Mau Aima, and admittedly a village development officer.
6. Furthermore, the applicant has not even cared to file the statements of 7 witnesses who have been cited in the list of witnesses in the change-sheet, obviously for the reason that the perusal of the statements of these witnesses would have further shown the complicity of the applicant in this case. It is notable that no interim order was granted in this case at an earlier stage.
7. Significantly (although even without referring to these documents prima facie a cognizable case is clearly disclosed against the applicant which would have resulted in the dismissal of the application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) it has been pointed out in the Counter affidavit that the enquiry report of the Block Development Officer dated 4.6.07 and order of District Panchyat Raj Officer dated 16.8.07 clearly showed the applicant's role in manipulating the Antyodaya and BPL cards of the Card holders of Soraon and his complicity in the fraud.
8. For all these reasons, I do not find any ground for interference in this application which is hereby rejected.
9. The prayer for consideration of bail application expeditiously by the courts below is also rejected. We direct the trial court to conclude the trial of this case within 6 months . However it is made clear that the observations hereina bove have been made for disposal of this application and the trial court should dispose of the trial uninfluenced by the same. Copy of this order may be sent to the trial Court within a month for compliance.