Fake Army, Railway job promise won’t end with compromise, Himachal High Court says

The order added, “The allegations in the FIR show that an allurement of employment in the public office was made. Even fake documents were issued to secure the money. Thus, it cannot be said that the dispute is private in nature, having a commercial flavour.”

Justice Rakesh Kainthla refused to quash an FIR against accused men who sent fake appointment letters for Army and Railways jobs.

Fake Army, Railway job promise

Ram Chand and others approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered in Kangra, alleging cheating, forgery, destruction or concealment of evidence, and criminal conspiracy. The FIR alleged that Ram Chand and Naresh Kumar promised the informant and two victims jobs in the Indian Railways and Army.

According to the FIR, Ram Chand discussed the recruitment process with the victim and asked for a security deposit. The informant and victims allegedly paid various amounts into his account. They were later called to Jalandhar and told that the recruitment process had been delayed due to Covid-19. Further amounts were allegedly demanded for securing the jobs.

The police registered the FIR and found that the documents sent to the victims were fake and were not issued by the competent authorities. Hence, the police filed the chargesheet before the court. 

The victims were subsequently sent documents showing their appointments in the Army and Railways. Police found these documents to be fake and not issued by the competent authorities, following which a charge sheet was filed.

Later, the victims came on record and stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily with the accused without any influence from any person, and they had no objection to quashing the F.I.R. based on a compromise between the parties. 

Compromise v public interest

Advocate Dixit Sahotra, appearing for Ram Chand, submitted that the matter had been compromised between the parties; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.

Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the State, submitted that the offence disclosed in the present case was not private. The documents showing that the accused belonged to the Army were forged, and the offence has wide public ramifications. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 

Noting that such offences are against society and not private in nature, the court held that the FIR could not be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, and dismissed the plea.