A legitimate prosecution should not be stifled by the inherent power under Section 482; delays must be evaluated in context and cannot independently quash serious allegations.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISH KUMAR, J.)

This Court has heard Ms. Kumkum Mukherjee, along with Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Soni Shrivastava, learned Advocate for the Economic Offence Unit. Learned APP for the State is also present.

2. The petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the First Information Report, bearing Economic Offence Wings Case No.12 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 (G.R. Case No. 5719 of 2015) instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , presently pending with the Learned Special Court, Economic Offence Wings, Muzaffarpur.

3. The prosecution case as briefly stated in the F.I.R. that on 11.12.2014 one Md. Kaisar Jamal gave a written application to the Inspector General, Economic Offences Unit, Bihar, Patna alleging therein that Sarada Pleasure and Adventure Limited is a Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) and its headquarter is at Siliguri (West Bengal), the branches of which runs at Jandaha (Vaishali), Patna, Chapara, Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur and Katihar. It is further alleged that the said Company collects monies from peoples through its agents since 2008, but even after maturity it failed to return the money and all the branches are closed. Despite the assurance given by the Managing Director of the Company, when the maturity amount have not been handed over, the customers/people approached Siliguri Headquarter Branch, thereupon they were threatened and thus returned with false promise.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted written application, the Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna lodged the First Information Report, bearing Economic Offence Wings Case No.12 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 under the aforenoted Penal provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner primarily set out the facts with regard to the Company and the role of the petitioner as follows; The petitioner is said to be the Managing Director of the Sarda Pleasure and Adventure Limited incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Hotel Sarda Compound, Hill Cart Road, Madalguri, P.O. and P.S. Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri, District Darjeeling, West Bengal. The said Company, being a Public Limited Company, can issue redeemable preferential share, debentures with an object to carry on in India and elsewhere the business of contractors, turn-key contractors, designers, architects, decorators, consultants, financiers and brokers of all types of constructions and for development work of roads, bridges, houses, offices, godowns etc.

6. Drawing the attention of the written report, learned Advocate for the petitioner vigorously contended that the written report so filed way back on 11.12.2014, but surprisingly the F.I.R. has been registered after a lapse of 318 days i.e. on 26.11.2015 without there being any explanation for delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. along with the relevant documents was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur on 30.11.2015 and thereafter