Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Kedar Mal Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. M.P. No. 2595 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Investigation - Criminal Proceeding - Quashing of Charges - Summary: The court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings and part of a charge sheet related to a case involving the transportation of coal dust in a truck. The petitioner, the owner of the truck, argued that since the driver had been acquitted, there was no need to proceed with the investigation. However, the court held that the investigation against the petitioner could continue under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the fact would emerge once the investigation was completed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding and part of the charge sheet related to a case involving the transportation of coal dust in a truck. The driver of the truck had been acquitted, and the petitioner argued that there was no need to proceed with the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the investigation against the petitioner could continue under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the fact would emerge once the investigation was completed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's case for quashing the criminal proceeding and part of the charge sheet should be accepted, considering the acquittal of the driver of the truck.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation against the petitioner could continue under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the fact would emerge once the investigation was completed. It was not a case for interference on the ground of acquittal of the co-accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the criminal proceeding and part of the charge sheet, allowing the investigation against the petitioner to continue.
JUDGMENT :
1. 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.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chandil P.S.Case No.50/14 corresponding to G.R. No.345/2014 by which F.I.R. has been lodged under sections 414/34 IPC and section 30(2) of the Coal Mines Act. The further prayer is made for quashing of the part of the charge sheet dated 28.06.2014 by which decision has been taken to continue the investigation against the petitioner who is owner of the Truck No.JH05K-7181 and the aforesaid case is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Saraikella Kharsawan.
3. The case was lodged stating that the police has presently got information during their regular inspection visit that Truck No.JH05K-7181 loaded with coal dust was coming from Chawka to Jamshedpur and said information was received on 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, the entire police force intercepted the said truck at around 9.30 p.m. and upon interception, the driver of the truck has enhanced the speed of the truck but the aforesaid truck was chased by patrolling party and finally the truck was stopped. The driver has somehow managed to run away taking the benefits of darkness. In the truck, it was found that the coal dust was loaded for which a seizure list as prepared and the present case was lodged.
4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that final form was submitted against the Driver of the truck in which trial has been concluded wherein it has been held that no case under section 414 IPC and section 30(2) of the Coal Mines Act is made out and the driver namely Jagat Singh has been acquitted. On this ground, he submits that the case has not been proved against the driver. There is no necessity of proceeding in the investigation.
5. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that earlier anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected twice. He submits that the investigation is going on. If anything comes in favour of the petitioner that will be submitted in the charge sheet.
6. In view of the aforesaid fact and considering the earlier report of the police that investigation against the petitioner is going on, there is no bar on further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.PC. The entire fact will emerge when once the investigation against the petitioner will be completed. This is not a case for interference on the ground of acquittal of co-accused wherein investigation against the petitioner is still going on.
7. Cr. M.P. No. 2595 of 2021 is dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investigation against the petitioner could continue under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, despite the acquittal of the driv....
Criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage unless there is clear abuse of process; FIR must disclose an offence broadly.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid written complaint by an authorized person for taking cognizance of an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Developm....
The court emphasized that the forfeiture of the vehicle should only occur upon conviction and that the detention of the vehicle should not cause damage or loss of utility.
The High Court should not inquire into the reliability of evidence or stifle a legitimate prosecution under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the defense of false allegations should be addressed during....
The court emphasized that the vehicle could only be forfeited after the trial concluded and a conviction was held, and directed interim custody of the vehicle to be released in favor of the petitione....
Route diversion of coal trucks does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC or related acts without evidence of criminal intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection provided under Section 27 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for actions taken in good faith while....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
