Exoneration on merits in departmental inquiry precludes criminal prosecution on identical facts as an abuse of process.

The petitioner, a Medical Officer, was nominated as the Drawing and Dispersing Officer (DDO) at the Primary Health Centre (PHC), Sadar Block, Gopalganj, in April 2021

An FIR was lodged alleging that a peon, Manish Julius, had been drawing salary since November 2018 without performing duties by fabricating attendance records in conspiracy with former officials, including the petitioner

Notably, the alleged fraud began two years before the petitioner joined the PHC

A prior departmental inquiry by the Regional Additional Director had already exonerated the petitioner on merits, finding that the responsibility for attendance verification lay with the ANM and Mukhiya, while the petitioner merely signed bills processed through official channels

Despite this exoneration, the FIR was lodged nine months later on the same facts

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC if the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute a prima facie offence

2. Whether a criminal prosecution can continue on the same set of facts where the accused has been exonerated on merits in a departmental inquiry

The court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

It relied on the landmark guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), specifically Categories 1 and 7, regarding the quashing of proceedings that fail to disclose an offence or are maliciously instituted

The court further applied the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust) as defined in N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), emphasizing the necessity of mens rea and dishonest misappropriation

Crucially, it followed Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI (2020) and Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011), which establish that criminal prosecution cannot continue if an accused is exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings on identical facts

The court found a fundamental contradiction in the FIR, noting the petitioner was not even posted at the PHC when the alleged fraud originated in 2018

The analysis revealed no evidence of mens rea or "meeting of minds" required for conspiracy under Section 120-B, as the petitioner merely followed an existing institutional channel for salary disbursement

The court observed that the petitioner did not fabricate records nor receive any diverted funds; he signed bills based on documents supplied by subordinates

Applying the Ashoo Surendranath Tewari precedent, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was exonerated in a departmental inquiry—which operates on a lower standard of proof—allowing a criminal trial on the same facts would be an abuse of process

The court also noted the suspicious omission of the primary beneficiary (the peon) from the FIR and concluded that the prosecution was an attempt to relitigate a settled matter for the purpose of harassment

The petition was allowed, and Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 186 of 2023, along with all consequential proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner