Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Nandlal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1331 of 2013
Decided on : 01-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate,
FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if no offense is made out, and it can be quashed in part if no cognizable offense is made out against the accused.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Partnership Dispute - Latehar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2012 - G.R. Case No. 453 of 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: FIR quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the absence of criminal offense in the allegations against the petitioner. The court applied the principle that FIR can be quashed in part if no cognizable offense is made out against the accused. The judgment referenced the case of 'State of U.P. through CBI versus- R.K.Srivastava & Another' and 'Lovely Salhotra & another- versus- State (NCT of Delhi) & Another' to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Nandlal Yadav, was accused of opening a separate bank account in the name of the firm without the consent of the complainant, who was his partner. The contracts awarded to the firm were executed, and the amount was deposited and withdrawn from the new bank account. The allegations also included failure to stop issuing cheques to the firm despite being informed, and a legal notice replied to by the petitioner's brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute any criminal offense and were a civil dispute given a color of criminal offense. It concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the chargesheet.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted a criminal offense or were a civil dispute given a color of criminal offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that when no offense is made out from the FIR, it can be quashed. It also referenced the case law to support its decision to quash the FIR in part if no cognizable offense is made out against the accused.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the entire criminal proceeding, including the chargesheet, was quashed so far as the petitioner was concerned.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. I.A. No. 7566 of 2019 has been filed for amendment in the prayer portion.
3. It has been submitted that chargesheet has been submitted vide chargesheet no. 99/13 dated 30.06.2013 against the petitioner and others.
4. In view of above facts, prayer made in I.A., is allowed.
5. I.A. No. 7566 of 2019 stands allowed. Let this I.A. be treated as part of main petition.
6. I.A. No. 7567 of 2019 has been filed for extension of interim order dated 02.09.2013.
7. Since, this matter is being heard on merit, I.A. No. 7567 of 2019 has become infructuous. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7567 of 2019 is dismissed as infructuous.
8. This petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2012 dated 05.08.2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 453 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. Chargesheet dated 30.06.2013 is also under challenge.
9. The FIR being Latehar Police Station Case No.101 of 2012 arises out of a complaint case being Complaint Case No.109 of 2012, has instituted alleging therein that the complainant/informant was 50% partner of M/s. N.S. Construction with accused No.1, another partner of same ratio on the basis of a partnership deed made on 23rd day of June, 2006 and duly signed by the parties and affidavited on 04.07.2006 before Public Notary, Daltonganj for contract business from State Government, Central Government Department, B.S.N.L., Railway, Reliance Group of India, Essar Group of India Company Ltd. Company Corporation etc. while the head office of this partnership work shall be at Village & P.O. Matlong, P.S. Manika, District Latehar, at the house of accused No.1. It is alleged that in terms of partnership deed Bank Account (Current) No.30644512174 was opened in State Bank of India, Latehar in the name of the firm M/s. N.S. Construction and accused No.1 would operate the Bank account. It is alleged that after agreement with M/s. N.S. Construction, duly signed by the complainant on behalf of the firm and Executive Engineer, R.W.D. Works Division-cumProject Officer, J.S.R., R.D.W., Latehar, contract work started under the aforesaid Executive Engineer agreement dated 06.10.2010 vide letter No.953 between the said firm and Executive Engineer. It is alleged that the copy of the said deed of agreement in the name of the firm and the bank account in the State Bank of India, Latehar Branch was handed over to the Executive Engineer for the purpose of smooth functioning of contract work. It is stated by the complainant that he has so far invested around Rs.10 lakh in the contract work. It is alleged that inspite of several turnover and payment on aforesaid current account of the firm by the department concerned, the accused No.1 did not make payment of single paise to the complainant nor any account was given by accused No.1 to the complainant till date. It is alleged that keeping in view the dishonest intention by accused No.1, Nandlal Yadav, who withdrew the entire amount from State Bank of India, Latehar Branch and not accounting for the same with the complainant, he filed a petition before State Bank of India, Latehar Branch, requesting to stop payment from the firm’s aforesaid account to accused Nandlal Yadav. It is alleged that the bank authority of State Bank of India, Latehar Branch stopped payment to accused No.1 from the aforesaid account. It is alleged that the complainant through letter dated 05.12.2012 informed and requested the accused No.4 to stop the payment from the current account No.496620110000180 of the aforesaid firm which was received by the accused No.4. It is alleged that the complainant made several written requests including advocate notice dated 29.10.2010, 06.05.2011, 19.11.2011 and 17.02.2012 to accused No.3, the then Execut
