Manoranjan Sharma And Another vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioners, Manoranjan Sharma and another, sought to quash an FIR registered on March 6, 2023, at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. The FIR alleged irregularities in the award of a contract for the supply of sanitary napkins to the daughter of petitioner No. 1, who was the Secretary of Red Cross, Narnaul. Allegations included discrepancies in the quantity of napkins, absence of a bio-degradable certificate, missing work order, non-entry of supplies in the stock register, and lack of GST and PAN/TAN on bills. The tender process occurred in June 2019, with supplies made by November 2019, but the FIR was lodged in 2023. The petitioners argued there was a delay in lodging the FIR, that articles were delivered and of approved quality, and that the entire procedure was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. They also claimed false implication due to personal enmity.

Held

The Court held that the FIR, based on the report of the SDM, clearly indicated specific and unambiguous allegations of irregularities in the awarding of the contract for sanitary napkins to the daughter of petitioner No. 1. The Court noted that while the petitioners claimed delivery, the stock register did not reflect it, and colleges' records were also unavailable. The absence of a bio-degradable certificate, despite it being a requirement, and the omission of essential prerequisites like PAN/TAN numbers were significant. The Court also found the approval of an advance payment of Rs. 17 lakhs based on a "single signature" approval suspicious, suggesting undue haste. The presence of cuttings in the bills further cast suspicion. The Court found that the facts stated in the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of offences and did not warrant invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR at this initial stage. The Court also noted that the investigation was at its nascent stage and the agency would proceed against others if warranted by evidence. The issue of delay in lodging the FIR was implicitly addressed by the Court's finding that the facts disclosed commission of offences, suggesting the delay did not negate the criminal nature of the allegations at this stage. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR discloses commission of offences warranting investigation, considering the alleged irregularities in the award of a contract for sanitary napkins to the daughter of petitioner No. 1, who was the Secretary of Red Cross, Narnaul, and the procedural lapses identified in the FIR? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, from the period of supply (November 2019) to the registration of the FIR (March 2023), warrants quashing of the FIR? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR. They argued that the articles in question were delivered and of approved quality, and that delivery was confirmed in various colleges. They also asserted that the entire procedure was duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner and that they were falsely implicated due to personal enmity. They further pointed out that the investigating agency was not taking action against other members of the committee. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the State or respondents. However, the Court's findings indicate that the State's position, as reflected in the FIR and the SDM's report, highlighted specific irregularities.