The High Court affirmed that a FIR can be quashed only if no offence is disclosed, reinforcing limitations on jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 212 of 2014 registered with Umra Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Director of Vardhman Sunmarg LIC Micro Insurance, Govt. of India Registered Organization (in short “LIC organization”) only on paper and he had never actively involved in the business of LIC organization. He would further submit that the petitioner was a stationary supplier and he is saving his money in the LIC organization. He would further submit that the FIR incorrectly shows the petitioner as Director of the LIC organization. He would further submit that the petitioner since is a victim of the alleged scheme floated by the LIC organization, he cannot be treated as accused in the matter. He would further submit that the petitioner has not taken any financial gain or advantage from the alleged scheme. He would further submit that the petitioner never knew about running of the office of the LIC organization at Surat and since he was just a paper Director, he cannot be treated as accused in the offence. He would further submit that since the petitioner was supplier of press materials, the petitioner was required to recover Rs.33 lakh from the LIC organization and since his payment was not made by the LIC organization, he has also registered FIR u/s 420 of the IPC at Vardhaman Police Station, West Bengal. Thus, he submits that since the petitioner is also the victim of the alleged scheme floated by the LIC organization, present petition deserves consideration by allowing the same.

2.1 Mainly upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shukla for the petitioner requests to allow this petition and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. BC Dave appearing for the respondent No.2 taking this Court through the FIR would submit that the life savings money of the poor and downtrodden people in tune of Rs.64,63,550/- have been siphoned and swindled away by the petitioner in collusion with other accused persons. He would further submit that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the LIC organization and therefore, he is vicariously liable. He would further submit that the offence of sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner. He would further submit that the scheme was floated in the year 2010, whereby decent returns in the investment was promised. Moreover, the complainant, who is agent of the LIC organization has also propagated the schemes of the LIC organization. However, later on, no returns on the invested amounts are paid to the complainant as well as the victim, which prima facie indicates that the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating are made out.

3.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dave prays to dismiss the petition.

4. Learned APP having joined the arguments of learned advocate Mr. BC Dave, placing on record report of the investigating officer, would submit that in total, three offences are registered against the petitioner for the identical offence and the CBI had invested the offence, which indicates