IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Shashi Bhushan Srivastava, S/o. Late Dasrath Prasad and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
Cr. M.P. No. 2216 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2022
F.I.R. Quashing - Criminal Prosecution - Indian Penal Code - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature of allegations in the F.I.R. and the ongoing investigation under the mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. to determine the criteria for exercising the power to quash the F.I.R.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the entire criminal prosecution pending in the court of C.J.M., Dumka, on the grounds of vague allegations and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the F.I.R. was based on an enquiry report alleging defalcation of government money and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the ongoing investigation and the statements of various witnesses supporting the prosecution case.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioners' claim of false implication and the grounds for quashing the F.I.R. based on the nature of allegations and the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. to determine whether the case fell under the broad criteria for quashing the F.I.R. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the F.I.R. but allowed the petitioners to raise their points before the lower court at the appropriate stage.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State.
3. The petitioners have filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing of the First Information Report in Dumka Town P.S. Case No.118 of 2020 instituted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal prosecution in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R., presently pending in the court of C.J.M., Dumka, as the same is completely vague disclosing no criminal liability against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no case is made out against the petitioners and therefore, instant application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R.
5. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State submitted that the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and as per the counter affidavit filed in the present case, a number of witnesses have been examined in the present case during investigation and they have supported the prosecution case and the investigation is still going on. Learned A.P.P. referred to the F.I.R. and the allegations made against the petitioners and submitted that no case for quashing of F.I.R. is made out. There is allegation of defalcation of government money in the instant case and accordingly, at this stage of the case, no interference is called for.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the F.I.R. involved in the present case has been instituted on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Collector, District Legal Branch, Dumka as contained in letter dated 05.03.2020 in which the enquiry committee has found that the services of accused Manoj Kumar Sah as Clerk in Project Girls High School, Kathikund and Santosh Kumar Mandal, Clerk in Project Girls High School, Gopikandar was illegally recognized and the orders for payment of the salaries were also issued and further Rs.49,53,731/- was withdrawn from the Treasury, Dumka for payment as salary to the aforesaid two accused persons. The Petitioner No.1 namely, Shashi Bhushan Srivastava was the then Head Clerk and the Petitioner No. 2 namely, Md. Iftekhar was a Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Dumka who played active role in committing the alleged offences. On account of the nature of allegations as made in the F.I.R. which is based on an enquiry report, F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 409, 420,467,468,471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and thus conspiracy is also alleged in the present case and the case is still under investigation. Moreover, as per the counter affidavit, during investigation, the statements of various witnesses have been recorded who have supported the prosecution case and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the State, the investigation is still going on.
7. In the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 = 1992 Cr.L.J. 527 (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.), it has been held in Para-102 as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the criteria for quashing an F.I.R. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou....
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and the court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
The main legal point established is that quashing of a criminal complaint or FIR should be sparingly exercised and is permissible only in rare cases where no prima facie case is made out.
The filing of a civil suit does not exempt a person from criminal liability, and the investigating agency must ascertain the truth of allegations in an FIR.
The court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR at the quashing stage; it must determine if the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding.
The court affirmed that FIRs containing legitimate allegations warranting investigation cannot be quashed unless no offence is disclosed or there is an abuse of process.
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases where investigation is pending, and does not permit the court to go into disputed questions ....
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.