Page 1

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014]

Hardei        …..Appellant   

Versus

State of U.P.        …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  order  dated  29.01.2014  by  the  

Hon’ble  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  dismissing  Criminal  

Revision No.2554/2013 preferred by the appellant seeking relief against  

order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha,  

the trial  Court,  summoning the appellant,  in exercise of  power under  

Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, to face trial in Sessions Trial  

No.9191 of 2010 (State Vs. Omkar & Ors.)  arising out of Case Crime  

No.1364 of 2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471/409, IPC pertaining  

to Police Station Amadpur, District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

1

Page 2

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

2. Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant facts may be  

noted in brief.  The FIR bearing No. 53 of 2010 leading to this case was  

lodged  on  20th July  2010  by  R.D.  Sharma,  the  Project  Director  of  a  

scheme  under  the  Mahatma  Gandhi  National  Rural  Employment  

Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MNREGA’ Scheme). One Rahul  

Yadav, a Junior Clerk in the Amroha Block Office and one Omkar Singh  

were named as accused with allegation that they had, as per enquiry  

report, prima facie embezzled an amount to the tune of Rs.49 Lacs from  

official  account  for  the  MNREGA  Scheme,  thereby  attracting  offence  

under Section 409 IPC.   

3. In  the  Special  Leave  Petition  there  is  reference  to  another  FIR  

bearing  No.  50  of  2010  dated  16th July,  2010  lodged  by  one  Mr.  

Muneshwar  Singh,  Block  Development  Officer,  Gangeshwari,  (J.P.  

Nagar).  In this FIR the same Rahul Yadav, Junior Clerk alone has been  

named as an accused with allegation of cheating and embezzlement in  

respect of an amount of Rs.25 lacs of MNREGA.  However, in course of  

further hearing it was made clear by learned counsel for the appellant  

that the present proceeding does not arise from this FIR and the whole  

purpose of  annexing a copy of  this FIR was to draw attention of  this  

Court  to  allegations  to  the  affect  that  the  appellant  although  signed  

cheques  for  withdrawal  of  money  from  MNREGA  account,  she  was  

innocent and had been cheated by Rahul Yadav.

2

Page 3

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

4. The written notes  of  arguments  on behalf  of  the appellant  also  

clarify that the instant proceedings arise only out of FIR No. 53 of 2010  

leading  to  Crime  No.  1364  of  2010.   The  first  charge-sheet  dated  

3.10.2010  was  only  against  Omkar  Singh  and  the  other  was  filed  

subsequently against accused Rahul Yadav, after he surrendered.

5. The criminal case progressed as Trial No. 9191 of 2010 and after  

some witnesses had been examined, an application under Section 319 of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Prosecution on 4.7.2013.  

The  application  discloses  that  the  case  was  fixed  for  evidence  and  

prosecution had already examined five witnesses including PW-1, R.D.  

Sharma.  On the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded in  

the course of trial, it was urged in the application that involvement of  

Muneshwar Singh, the then Block Development Officer and the appellant  

Smt.  Hardei,  the  then  Block  Pramukh  of  Kshetra  Panchayat,  

Gangeshwari had emerged and such materials were also available in the  

statement  of  concerned  witnesses  recorded  under  Section  161  of  

Criminal Procedure Code.  The prayer to summon both of them under  

Section  319  Cr.P.C.  was  considered  by  the  learned  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate, Amroha.  He, after noticing in particular the statement made  

by  R.D.  Sharma  as  P.W.1,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  prima  facie  

offence  was made  against  both the  proposed  accused  and hence  the  

application was allowed by order passed on 9th July, 2013.  As already  

noticed, the High Court affirmed the order of the Magistrate by rejecting  

3

Page 4

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

Criminal Revision preferred by the appellant on 29.1.2014 and that order  

has given rise to the present appeal.

6. Mr.  R.  K.  Kapoor,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  relied  

heavily upon the fact that the appellant was not named as an accused in  

the FIR nor any charge-sheet was submitted against her after completion  

of  investigation.   He  further  submitted  that  the  amount  has  been  

embezzled  mainly  by  accused  Rahul  Yadav  and  Omkar  Singh  and  

therefore, the defence of the appellant that she was illiterate lady who  

does not know even to sign much less reading or writing should have  

been accepted by the Magistrate and the High Court.  It was pointed out  

that in the FIR lodged by co-accused Muneshwar Singh against Rahul  

Yadav, the defence of the appellant was clearly spelt out.   

7. Learned counsel for the State of U.P., on the other hand supported  

the summoning order of Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the order  

under appeal by the High Court.  According to him, there is no denial of  

the fact that along with Muneshwar Singh, this appellant was the co-

signatory and only with their signatures money could be withdrawn from  

the  MNREGA  account;  therefore,  in  such  a  situation  the  statement  

emerging  from  the  deposition  of  the  complainant/informant  R.D.  

Sharma,  P.W.1  that  amounts  used  to  be  withdrawn  jointly  by  the  

appellant and the Muneshwar Singh, the Block Development Officer and  

hence they are also answerable for the embezzlement of the concerned  

amount could not have been ignored at the present stage in anticipation  

4

Page 5

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

of defence of the appellant that she is illiterate and cannot sign her name  

and that she was duped or cheated by co-accused Rahul Yadav.

8. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions,  

we find no good reason to interfere with the order under appeal.  

9. It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. may not  

contain all  the details of  the occurrence or even the names of all  the  

accused.  It is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts already  

known.  There are varities of crimes and by their very nature, details of  

some crimes can be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation.  

This is more true in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or  

cases not founded on eye witness accounts.  The fact that Police chose  

not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the trial  

court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on  

account of evidence recorded during trial.  This is the factual scenario in  

the case at hand also.   

10.  It would not be proper for us to deal with detailed merits of the  

prosecution  case  or  the  defence  case  at  this  juncture.   Hence,  while  

dismissing the appeal, we make it clear that the observations made in  

the impugned orders or this order shall not have any adverse effect on  

the case of either of the parties.  It is also made clear that the appellant  

shall be at liberty to take all the defence available to her, in accordance  

5

Page 6

Crl.A.186 of 2016 @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014

with law, in course of the trial.  The appeal stands dismissed with the  

aforesaid observations.

     …………………………………….J.       [DIPAK MISRA]

      ……………………………………..J.                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. March 30, 2016.

6