Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer

29 November 2024 2:43 PM

By: sayum


FIR against K. C. Bhalse quashed due to non-compliance with Pension Rules, 1976, despite allegations of procedural irregularity in MGNREGA project execution.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the FIR against retired Executive Engineer K. C. Bhalse, highlighting a breach of the stipulated time frame for initiating judicial proceedings. Justice Subodh Abhyankar's ruling underscores the protection granted under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, and the absence of mens rea in the alleged misconduct.

The petitioner, K. C. Bhalse, a retired Executive Engineer, faced an FIR dated June 20, 2014, under various sections of the IPC and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. The charges stemmed from the alleged unauthorized use of a JCB machine instead of manual labor for sanctioned work under the MGNREGA scheme, resulting in payments made for machine labor rather than manual labor. Bhalse retired on March 31, 2023, without a charge-sheet being filed against him.

Justice Abhyankar referred to Rule 9(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, which restricts the initiation of judicial proceedings more than four years after the cause of action or event occurred. "No judicial proceeding...shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action, which arose or in respect of an event, which took place, more than four years before such institution," the court noted​​. Since the FIR was filed on June 20, 2014, the window for initiating proceedings closed on June 20, 2018. Bhalse’s retirement further fortified his protection under this rule.

The court found no evidence of criminal intent (mens rea) in Bhalse's actions. The FIR acknowledged the payment for work executed by a JCB machine, which, while irregular, did not constitute illegality or embezzlement. "It is only an irregularity and not an illegality, as no mens rea can be attributed to the petitioner," the court stated​​. Additionally, a departmental inquiry had already exonerated Bhalse of the same allegations.

Justice Abhyankar remarked, "The payment of Rs.3,358 to the JCB owner/driver would not fall under any offences much less any offence as mentioned in the FIR, and the petitioner cannot be saddled with the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating"​​.

The High Court's decision to quash the FIR underscores the judiciary's adherence to procedural safeguards and statutory protections for retired government servants. This ruling not only vindicates K. C. Bhalse but also reaffirms the legal principle that procedural violations, such as the delay in initiating judicial proceedings, cannot be overlooked. The judgment is expected to influence similar cases, ensuring strict compliance with the statutory time limits for initiating judicial actions against retired officials.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2024

 

Similar News