IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to refuse the quashing of criminal proceedings when a prima facie offence is disclosed in the FIR and further investigation is deemed necessary.

JUDGMENT :

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Charge-sheet No. 13/2017 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, with reference GR No. 53/2017 reference C No. 406/419/420/468 of the IPC.

2. This Court have duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who has drawn the attention of this Court to the Charge-sheet submitted on 06.07.2017, wherein the Investigating Officer have only filed the Charge-sheet against one Shri Abhishek Bora and not against the petitioner. He further draws the attention of this Court to the portion of the Charge-sheet wherein the Investigating Officer has opined that there is no prima facie concrete evidence that could be established against the petitioner herein from the available documents. He, therefore, submits that the instant FIR requires to be quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. In addition to that, he submits that in the Charge-sheet the Investigating Officer has opined that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner, then also the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner, which ought not to have been done. Therefore, he has also challenged the issuance of warrant of arrest in the instant proceedings.

3. I have also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland, appearing on behalf of the State, who submits that a perusal of the Charge-sheet, though would show that the Investigating Officer had opined that there was no prima facie concrete evidence could be found against the petitioner but that opinion is based on the fact that the petitioner herein has been an absconder and despite various efforts the petitioner could not be located. He, therefore, referred to the same paragraph of the opinion of the Investigating Officer and submits that the Investigating Officer also stated in the Charge-sheet that investigation would be revived again if and when details of the suspect, i.e. the petitioner, is established to ascertain his involvement in the case and supplementary Charge-sheet shall be submitted. The learned P.P. further brought to the attention of this Court that pursuant to the filing of the Charge-sheet a prayer has been made for the purpose of further investigation and in pursuance to that this warrant of arrest has been issued. He, therefore, submits that the investigation in respect to the said case have not yet been completed, and as such, the case has been pending because of the stay so granted by this Court. Mr. K. Angami has also produced the Case Diary which have been duly perused and returned back.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 further submitted that a perusal of the FIR would categorically show the involvement of the petitioner in as much as the petitioner along with the said Shri Abhishek Bora had represented before the respondent No. 2 that they are Chairman and General Manager of a Company, M/S View Image Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner along with the said Shri Abhishek Bora had also induced the respondent No. 2 to part with an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) and thereupon, they have cheated the petitioner. She, therefore, submitted that a perusal of the FIR would categorically shows that there is a disclosure of a criminal offence against the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner could not be located, the Investigating Officer had stated in the Charge-sheet that the petitioner could not be traced out.

5. This Court have duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record including the FIR, Charge-sheet as well as the Case Records which have been called for.

6. From a perusal of the FIR it appears to this Court that a criminal offence has been prima facie disclosed against the petitioner as well as one Shri Abhishek Bora. T