JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Hitesh V. Shah – Petitioner
versus
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation – Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No.2062 of 2025
Decided on 3.12.2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 120B – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Illegal gratification – Cognizance of offence – At the stage of taking cognizance of offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons, detailed enquiry regarding merits and demerits of case is not required – Court has given cogent reason while taking cognizance against accused persons including petitioner – At the stage of issuance of process, Court is mainly concerned with allegation made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Court is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused or not – Court while taking cognizance, has dealt with allegation and thereafter has been pleased to take cognizance – There is no illegality in order taking cognizance – In a case where investigation is completed, Court is not required to appreciate evidence for quashing criminal proceeding – To appreciate evidence is function of Criminal Court – Petition dismissed. (Paras 20, 29 and 30)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC08(A)/2017-R dated 30.10.2017, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.
3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the information has been received by the Officer-in-Charge i.e. Superintendent of Police/HOB C.B.I, ACB Ranchi as stated therein that informant has received information through reliable sources to the effect that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical Wing of MECON Ltd. entered into criminal conspiracy with the proprietors of co-accused M/s. Zeal India Chemical as well as proprietors of M/s Shiv Machine Tools and in furtherance thereof accepted illegal gratification from the two firms amounting to around Rs. 1,65,45,000/- through banking transactions. It was further alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal has received the alleged amount in various accounts existing either in his own name or in the name of his relatives/friends. It was also alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal evaluated the technical bids of the above firms submitted by them in different tenders and was also working as the Project Coordinator on behalf of MECON in the works awarded to the said firms. It was then alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal was the competent person to pass the designs/drawings submitted by the firms while executing the works. It was next alleged that the M/s Zeal India Chemicals participated in the tender floated by Durgapur Steel Plant vide no DSP/PROJ-PUR/EXPN/MSM-07/308 dated 11.05.2013 and had submitted its bid on 26.06.2013. The technical bid was evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and Tender Appraisal Report was finalized in August, 2013. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Zeal India Chemicals which is still in progress. The alleged money of Rs. 49,50,000/- has been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Zeal India Chemicals during the period 12.06.2013 to 15.06.2016 through bank accounts in his own name and in the name of his relatives/friends. It was next alleged that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the tender floated by Bokaro Steel Plant vide no T&C (M) /B320/036C/SPG/314 dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The technical bid was evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and was finalized in March 2015. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools which is still in progress. The alleged money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- has been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank account in the name of his relatives/friends. The above discussed acts on part of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Zeal India Chemical, Opposite Arya Samaj Mandir, 3rd Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi and M/s Shiv Machine Tools, 102-Armenian Street, Chennai- 600 001 disclosed commission of cognizable offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. On the above grounds, the case was registered against Upendra Nath Mandal, the then Sr. Manager, Metallurgical Wing, MECON Ltd. (Residing at House No. MIG-34, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Near Sai Mandir, Aghanpur, Jagadipur, Dist.-Bastar); M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Opposite Arya Samaj Mandir, 3rd Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road Upper Bazar, Ranchi (represented through its Propr
Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another
C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala
Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi
IVECO Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and another
Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others
Illegal gratification – In a case where investigation is completed, Court is not required to appreciate evidence for quashing criminal proceeding – To appreciate evidence is function of Criminal Cour....
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecutor are not meticulously judged.
Scrap dealer not liable under Sections 411/120-B IPC for purchasing scrap from attached premises pursuant to custodian permission and cheque payment, absent knowledge of theft or conspiracy; FIR quas....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.