MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

29 November 2024 7:02 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

 

Latest Legal News