SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 239

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J
Pankaj Dutta S/o Late Kalyan Kr. Dutta - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr - Respondent
Crl.Pet. 370 / 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Kalita, ld. Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. M. P. Goswami, ld. Addl. P.P, Resp.-1 and Mr. S. C. Keyal, ld.Adv., Resp.-2.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that a prima facie case was established for charges under Section 408 IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of quashing under Section 482 CrPC without conducting a mini trial.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 and 397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 408 - Quashing of charge - Application filed to quash order framing charge under Section 408 IPC - Allegations of embezzlement of company funds - Insufficient evidence presented, including lack of audit report or bank statements - Court found prima facie case established based on witness statements, dismissing the petitioner's plea. (Paras 2 , 8 , 10 , 18 )

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 should not involve a mini trial and must focus on whether sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused. (Paras 16 , 17 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, a Sales Executive, was accused of embezzling company funds based on an FIR alleging mishandling of cash payments. The trial court framed charges despite no specific amount mentioned in the FIR or evidence of embezzlement.

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that a prima facie case was made out based on witness statements, dismissing the petition for quashing the charge.

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence for framing charges and the appropriateness of invoking inherent powers to quash proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's decision to frame charges was justified based on available evidence, emphasizing that at this stage, the merits of the case should not be deeply examined.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Sections 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) [in short ‘ld. Addl. CJM], Guwahati, Assam, in PRC Case No. 2001/2019 by which charge under Section 408 of the IPC has been framed against the present petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that: on 23.02.2019, one Sri Pulak Baidya, (SM) of Nexa Chandmari/respondent No.2, lodged an FIR before the Chandmari Police Station alleging, inter alia, that one of their employees, who had already been terminated, was found to have engaged in embezzlement of company funds while dealing with customers. The employee had inappropriately handled cash payments and, during the account audit, a shortage in the payments for the cases he had handled was discovered. Thereafter, the management of NEXA Chandmari (Pallavi Motors Pvt. Ltd.) published a public notice in the Assam Tribune.

4. Further, based on the FIR, a criminal case was registered by the Officer-in- Charge of Chandmari Police Station, vide Chandmari Police Station Case No. 159/2019, under Section 408 of IPC against the present petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested by the Chandmari Police on 26.02.2019 and forwarded to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati on 27.02.2019. It is worth mentioning here that the Investigating Authority did not seek the custody of the accused for the purpose of investigation, and accordingly, the accused was remanded to Jail Hajot. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 26.03.2019, vide Order in Bail Application No. 682/2019. While granting bail, this Court observed that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner had not been mentioned in the FIR, nor was it reflected in the forwarding report. The FIR was further observed to be very unspecific.

5. After investigating the allegations in the FIR, the I.O submitted the Charge- Sheet (No. 31 dated 31.03.2019) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) [in short ‘ld. CJM], at Guwahati. As per the Charge-Sheet, it appears that the I.O had visited the place of occurrence and recorded witness statements, and concluded that the case against the present petitioner under Section 408 of IPC was well established. It is noteworthy that the Charge-Sheet does not mention the seizure of any documents from NEXA Chandmari, Pallavi Motors, or any audit report, bank statements, etc., despite the alleged embezzlement of company funds.

6. Following the submission of the Charge-Sheet before the ld. CJM, PRC No. 2001/2019 was initiated, and trial ensued against the present petitioner. It is stated that the learned Trial Court, upon receiving the case record on transfer, took cognizance of the offence under Section 408 of IPC against the present petitioner, vide Order dated 02.09.2019. The learned Magistrate, by the same Order, also directed that summons be issued to the petitioner. In compliance with the summons, the petitioner appeared in PRC No. 2001/2019, and relevant copies such as the FIR, statements of three prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Charge- Sheet were provided to the petitioner as an accused in the PRC. After service of the relevant copies by the prosecution side, the learned Magistrate heard the prosecution side, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as the engaged Counsel for the petitioner, at length on the consideration of the Charge on 03.08.2023. The


                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                        Please visit our Training & Support
                        Center or Contact Us for assistance

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                        whatsapp-icon Back to top