IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Akhay Kumar Mohanty & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 1322 of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2022
FIR Quashing - Criminal Prosecution - Indian Penal Code - Sections 379, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 - The court discussed the allegations of misappropriation, submitting forged and fabricated bills, and the challenge to the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The court referred to the case of M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. Versus M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. and emphasized that the truth or falsity of the allegations would be decided at trial, and at the stage of challenging the FIR, no interference was warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution, including the FIR, in connection with a case alleging misappropriation and fraud in a road construction project. The accused persons were alleged to have misappropriated funds, materials, and documents, and submitted forged and fabricated bills to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was ongoing and only the FIR was under challenge in the petition. It emphasized that the truth or falsity of the allegations would be decided at trial and no interference was warranted at the stage of challenging the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the challenge to the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the allegations of misappropriation, submitting forged and fabricated bills, and theft of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the truth or falsity of the allegations would be decided at trial and at the stage of challenging the FIR, no interference was warranted.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing the entire criminal prosecution, including the FIR, was dismissed at this stage.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. G.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the First Information Report, in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 3046 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
4. The O.P. No. 2 filed the complaint alleging therein that the complainant is the business man, he run construction work in the name and style of M/s Anshul Construction. The accused persons are very clever persons. They are very known to the complainant and his family. They have also very well known about the work of the complainant and his firm. The complainant and his firm was allotted a work for road construction in Chakulia Bend Road from Mardabandh chowk to Kanimohli through Jugitopa, Jharia total distance of 5 kms. road. The complainant was constructing the aforesaid road peacefully and honestly. The accused persons known about the aforesaid work of the complainant and with the dishonest, malafide and fraudulent intention approached / induces to the complainant and witness no. 1 at their house in H.E.C. Qr. No. CD-68, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi to do the work with them.
It is further alleged that for the above work the accused persons assured to the complainant and witness no. 1 that they will do their work with fully honesty and dignity and they also assured to invest their money in the aforesaid work. As per the assurance of the accused persons the complainant and witness no. 1 believed their versions and agree to do the work with them. For this the complainant entered into deed of partnership with accused No. 1 on dated 02.03.2015 at the house of complainant, wherein the accused No. 2 was also signed over the aforesaid deed of partnership as a witness. As per the above deed of partnership and assurance of the accused persons the complainant believed their version and started work with them. The complainant also believed the accused persons and hand over the entire work to them. The accused person started all the work like purchase material, transaction of money through cheque and cash operating the bank account etc. After some times the complainant came to know that both the accused persons have misappropriated the huge amount and materials from the aforesaid work and site. Thereafter the complaint along with the witness no. 1 inquire the matter and found that the huge materials have not been used in their site and the same was sold in another place. The accused persons are also given forged fabricated and false bills of materials to the complainant and taken huge amount from the for the same time to time. They have also not given the payment to the labours although the same has been obtained by the accused persons from the complainant. the complainant also came to know that accused persons have taken huge amount from him time to time by giving false statements for miscellaneous expenses.
It is further alleged that after the preliminary enquiry the complainant found that accused persons have misappropriate approx Rs.15,00,000/-(Fifteen lakhs), the amount may increase in further inquiry. They have also stolen valuable things like copy of DPR, Master roll, Register, Important documents, signed and unsigned cheques etc. from the office of the complainant. The complainant along with the witness no. 1 inquire the matter then they also found that the accused persons have dishonestly and fraudulently entered
M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.
At the stage of challenging the FIR, the truth or falsity of the allegations would be decided at trial, and no interference was warranted.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence of criminal intent before taking cognizance of a case and the relevance of contractual obligations in d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal proceeding can be quashed if it is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
A legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the complainant had locus standi to set the law in motion.
Criminal prosecution is justified when allegations indicate dishonest intent and forgery, overriding claims of civil dispute under contractual obligations.
Scuttling the criminal proceeding at the nascent stage would be unfair and illegal, and the allegations carried the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
The court found that the allegations made in the criminal complaints are prima facie and require a thorough investigation. The documents failed on the twin parameters of reliability and trustworthine....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
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.