IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing – A legitimate criminal prosecution cannot be interdicted by High Court – Task of High Court, when called upon to adjudicate application seeking to quash proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out or not – It is not to examine whether charges may hold up in Court – In doing so, area of action is circumscribed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant, Abhishek Singh, is the complainant and has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.67884 of 2023, whereby the respondents’ application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[Cr.P.C.] was allowed and the First Information Report dated 7th September 2023 filed by him under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[IPC], being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.393 of 2023, was quashed.

3. The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal, as set out by the Courts below, are that the appellant, being a businessman by vocation, was in need of certain funds which he secured by way of a loan from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch. Having pledged 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of security, a loan of Rs. 7,70,000 was made in his favour, on 22nd July, 2020. The dispute arises when it comes to the repayment of this loan. According to the appellant, upon receipt of notice dated 7th October, 2022 from the bank asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 8,01,383.59, which included interest, he repaid the same as on 31st March, 2023. Unbeknownst to him, the bank conducted a revaluation of the gold pledged by him and, to that end, deducted Rs. 1500 towards fees. His applications for returning the pledged gold fell on deaf years. On the other hand, according to the bank, he did not pay the loan, because of which the gold became an asset of the bank. In order to realise the money involved in the transaction, the said gold was revalued and found to be counterfeit when it was allegedly reported by a valuer, different from the one who had originally valued the appellant’s gold when the loan was made, that the material pledged was not gold in actuality but gold plated on top of other metals. One FIR was registered under sections 420 and 379 IPC against the appellant on 22nd May, 2023. Another FIR, subject matter of this appeal, was registered subsequently after an application was made by the appellant to the competent authority under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1, the Accused therein, was the Branch and Credit Manager at the time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold.

4. Having completed its investigation into the appellant’s allegations, the investigating authorities filed a chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East) Mithanpura, having the particulars as Final Report/Chargesheet No.371/24, dated 30th September, 2024. While the investigation was still underway, the respondents filed an application seeking quashing of the FIR on 5th October, 2023. It is in this application that the impugned judgment came to be passed.

5. The High Court, having perused the material on record, came to the following conclusions :

a) this FIR is “a mere counterblast” to the FIR lodged by the bank;

b) the same has been lodged with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself;

c) to this end, the respondent before the High Court, the appellant herein, had obtained a loan from the bank for pledging spurious gold ornaments;

d) the institution of the FIR was “with an ulterior motive and also as an afterthought”;

e) even if the contents of the complaint are taken at face value, no offence is made out.

f) The Court relied upon paragraphs 29 to 31 of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP., (2015) 6 SCC 287 to hold that since the appellant had not affixed any affidavit as mandated by this judgment, the FIR was unsustainable;

g) Continuation of criminal proceedings against the respondents herein would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, given that the complaint made by the appellant herein was “malicious”.

6. In that view of the matter, the FIR was quashed, and the appellant carried the matter to this Court.

7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record in d