Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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