The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against men accused of taking money after allegedly promising jobs in the Army and Railways and issuing fake appointment documents, holding that the allegations involved an offence affecting society at large and could not be treated as a purely private dispute.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the petition filed by Ram Chand and others, who had sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of a compromise with the victims.
The court observed that allegations of inducing people with promises of public employment, obtaining money and using forged documents could have wider consequences, particularly for unemployed persons.
It said the allegations showed that employment in public offices had been offered as an inducement and fake documents were allegedly issued to secure money. The dispute, therefore, could not be regarded as private in nature or merely carrying a commercial element.
Allegations Of Jobs In Army And Railways
The FIR was registered in Kangra for alleged cheating, forgery, destruction or concealment of evidence and criminal conspiracy.
According to the FIR, Ram Chand and Naresh Kumar allegedly promised the informant and two victims employment in the Indian Railways and the Army.
Ram Chand allegedly discussed the recruitment process with one of the victims and sought a security deposit. The informant and the victims then allegedly transferred various amounts to his account.
They were subsequently called to Jalandhar, where they were told that the recruitment process had been delayed because of Covid-19. Further amounts were allegedly demanded for securing the jobs.
The victims were later sent documents purporting to show their appointments in the Army and Railways.
During the investigation, police found that the documents were fake and had not been issued by the competent authorities. A chargesheet was thereafter filed before the court.
Victims Supported Quashing After Compromise
The victims later stated before the court that they had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused without any influence and had no objection to the FIR being quashed on that basis.
Advocate Dixit Sahotra, appearing for Ram Chand, argued that since the dispute had been settled between the parties, the FIR and all proceedings arising from it should be quashed.
Deputy Advocate General Tarun Pathak opposed the plea on behalf of the State. He submitted that the alleged offence was not private in nature and involved forged documents showing association with the Army, giving the case wider public ramifications.
Court Finds Wider Public Impact
The High Court accepted the State’s contention and held that the nature of the allegations went beyond a dispute between private individuals.
The court observed that making representations about securing employment, allegedly forging documents to support such representations and obtaining money on that basis constituted conduct capable of affecting many unemployed people.
It therefore held that the FIR could not be quashed merely because the accused and the victims had subsequently reached a compromise.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
