Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 1181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH), KOHIMA BENCH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Vaibhav Jain, S/o. Subhash Chand Jain and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland Represented by its Public Prosecutor and Anr.– Respondents
Crl. Pet. No.19 Of 2020
Decided On : 29-07-2022
For the petitioners: Mr. Moa Jamir.
For the respondents: Mr. V. Zhimomi.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 477A – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 227 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 142, 138 – Specifies that if any person is associated with gang of persons with motive of committing theft, robbery – However commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years – Covers dishonest misappropriation in cases where receipt of property is by a fraudulent or by improper – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money – Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction – Instant criminal petition under Section Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by petitioners seeking quashing and setting aside of a First Information Report [FIR] registered as Police Station Case for offences under Sections Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section of Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, and criminal proceedings arising out of said FIR, Held, In light of discussions made above and for reasons assigned therein, criminal petition stands allowed in respect of prayer made by petitioner is concerned while declining same relief to petitioner herein – Resultantly, criminal proceedings arising out of FIR in connection with Police Station Case in so far as petitioner is concerned are set aside and quashed – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant criminal petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, ['the Code' and/or 'the CrPC', for short] is preferred by two petitioners viz. [1] Sri Vaibhav Jain, and [2] Sri Bhupendra Singh Rathore, seeking quashing and setting aside of a First Information Report [FIR] dated 12.02.2020, registered as Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020] on 22.02.2020, for offences under Sections 120B/406/409/420/467/477A, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, and the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the First Information Report [FIR] lodged by one Sri Bajrang Lal [the respondent no. 2] as the informant projecting himself as the Manager and the authorized person of one M/s Sitaram Mittal, a proprietorship firm. Based on the said FIR lodged, on 12.02.2020, before the Officer In- Charge, Chumukedima Police Station, the crime case being Chumukedima Police Station Case no. 16/2020 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 193/2020] has come to be registered for the alleged offences, mentioned hereinabove.
3. After registration of the FIR as a crime case, the third accused person arraigned in the FIR as accused viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal was arrested pursuant to issuance of warrant of arrest and transit remand/production warrant against all the 3 [three] accused persons by an order dated 27.02.2022 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Dimapur [‘the trial court’, for short] and the said arrested accused person was produced after arrest, before the learned trial court on 04.03.2020.
4. The petitioners have contended that the respondent no. 2-informant as the complainant had earlier, on 03.09.2019, instituted a complaint case before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Dimapur [the trial court] impleading the aforementioned arrested accused person viz. Sri Ankit Khandelwal as the accused no. 1 and the petitioner no. 1 herein as the accused no. 2.
5. The records go to indicate that the said complaint petition was registered and numbered as C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019]. As it transpires from the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] [Annexure-3 to the criminal petition], the learned trial court after perusal of the contents of the complaint along with the document annexed thereto and after recording the initial deposition of the complainant [the respondent no. 2 herein] under Section 200, CrPC, took cognizance on the complaint and after finding a prima facie case about commission of offences under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended [‘the N.I. Act’, for short], issued process [summons] against the two accused persons named in the said complaint calling for their appearance to stand the trial.
6. On receipt of the process [summons] from the learned trial court, the petitioner no. 1 herein being the accused no. 2, had entered appearance in Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019] through his engage counsel.
7. The materials on record also go to show that the two accused persons arraigned in the complaint case i.e. Complaint Case no. C.R. 03/2020 [C.R. 35/2019], had preferred a criminal revision petition under Section 379 r/w Section 399 of the Code before the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur [‘the revisional court’, for short] against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned trial court. The said criminal revision petition was registered and numbered as Criminal Revision no. 02/2019. By an order dated 04.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision no. 02/2019, the learned revisional court issued notice to the complainant viz. Sri Bajrang Lal [the respondent no. 2-informant herein] making the notice returnable on 05.12.2019 and in the meantime, while calling for the LCR, the learned revisional court stayed the fu
