IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Samir J. Dave, J.
Anil Vijay Kaushik – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 15685 of 2023
Decided On : 05-09-2023
Article 226 - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B) - Information Technology Act, Sections 66(C) and 66(D)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a complaint and charge-sheet for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that there was no evidence of their involvement in the alleged transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense could not be ruled out based on the allegations in the FIR. The Court dismissed the petition in limine.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court should exercise its discretion under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint and charge-sheet against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR. The Court also emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere with the investigation at the initial stage unless there is a risk of miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11191067210070 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable u/s. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120(B) of IPC and under sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act as well as Charge-sheet as C.C. No.98822/2021 and all other consequential proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that during January 2020 to March, 2021 unknown person giving his name Sanjay Mishra has given false introduction as supply chain head at L&T Ship Building, Faridabad and unknown person viz. Abhinav Tiwarin the person of Sanjay Mishra has made business conversation with the complainant in the name of L&T Ship Building, Faridabad and obtaining bills related to business of transport from the complainant and falsely stating that Broker Devidas Nagle of Gangotri Trailer Transport has put up the trailers, the said persons have together planning per-planned criminal conspiracy, obtaining assurance and trust of the complainant and falsely stating that Gangotri Trailer Transport Broker Devidas Nagle has put up trailers, receiving large sum of amount of Rs.12,85,84,700/- other than T.D.S. in the name of business from the complainant and paying an amount of Rs.6,00,30,700/- to gain the assurance and trust of complainant, not paying rest of the amount of Rs.6,98,25,505/-.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal Sinha appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Shailesh Desai for the petitioner submitted present applicant has no any connection with the said offence and he is innocent and was wrongly dragged in this offence. Looking to the FIR, there is no name of present applicant as an accused and in course of police investigation, present respondent no.2 (i.e. original complainant) has dragged wrongly in present applicant herein and it is requested to stay warrant or arrest warrant, if any issued by the police concerned or learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, City Court, Ahmedabad against the present applicant under section 70 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that as per the charge-sheet no any specific role attributed to the present applicant and present applicant has not taken any part in the said money transaction. He also submitted that original accused have made false confessional statement against this applicant without any supportive documents and thus, the present applicant is not involved in present transactions of money. It is further submitted that present applicant is unknown to the accused persons and not participated in the said offence. He therefore submitted that there is nothing to show that any incident had taken place due to which the complainant out of fear could not get the FIR registered and therefore also, this is a fit case where discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of the applicant.
4. Mr.Sinha referred to and relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 (10) SCC 773, Km. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Ores, 2014 (4) SCC 453, Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC.online SC 1083 as well as judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri L. Sathish Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka delivered in Writ Petition No.6732 of 2023 and submitted that looking to the entire FIR and charge-sheet papers biased allegations levelled without scientific piece of evidence against the present applicant and so there is no any prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and he therefore prayed that charge-sheet and its proceedings qua for this present applicant are liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court notices that this request is made for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr
Km. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Ores
The power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and allegations must disclose a cognizable offence for proceedings to continue.
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Q....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
Point of Law : The remedies available in law for false and vexatious charges have also been highlighted in the said judgment to dissuade the High Courts from exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC.
High Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC only in exceptional circumstances, with a prima facie case against accused warranting investigation.
Power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure ends of justice.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases. The veracity of the allegations in the FIR should be tested by the investigating agency, and the cou....
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.