IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Rajeev Kumar Singh @ Rajeev Kumar, son of Ashok Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through C.B.I. - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1411 of 2009
Decided on : 15-06-2023
Forgery - Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved allegations of forged bank guarantees submitted to obtain mobilization advance, causing a loss to RITES Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence against the petitioner, as he was implicated in the issuance of letters to cancel genuine bank guarantees, despite being appointed as Managing Director after the alleged actions. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prima facie evidence existed against the petitioner, and the matter should proceed to trial to determine the veracity of the allegations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash the criminal proceedings and vacated interim orders, allowing the trial to proceed in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Vikash Pandey, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent C.B.I. and the intervenor/informant-RITES Ltd. as the application filed by the intervenor was allowed by the order dated 28.6.2013 in I.A. No.620 of 2010, respectively.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C B.D 01/2005/E0006 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC including the order taking cognizance dated 5.12.2008, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The case was registered by the C.B.I on the information by RITES Ltd alleging that the petitioner has not filed any other application for the same self relief earlier before this Hon'ble Court or any other court. That the case of the prosecution in narrow compass is that one Mr. M.D. Jhoshi, Joint Manager, Vigilance, informed the D.I.G. of Police, C.B.I. that Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) awarded the work of Rural Electrification in favor of RITES Ltd. at a total cost of Rs.300/- Crores vide Agreement No. 01/RE/JSEB/03-04 to 10/RE/JSEB/03-04. RITES Ltd., in turn, sub-contracted the work to M/s. Ramjee Power Construction Ltd., Kumar Niwas, Bright Lane, Koker, Ranchi (RPCL) at Rs.276.5 Crores vide Agreement Nos. 01/ RE/RITES/ 03-04 to 10/ RE/ JEITES/ 03-04. It is further alleged in the FIR that in terms of the provision of agreement executed between the RITES Ltd. and M/s. RPCL bank guarantees were required to be submitted by M/s. RPCL on account of security deposit at the rate of 5% of Rs.277.5 Crores which comes to the tune of Rs.13.875 Crores of contract amount in the form of Bank Guarantee at the time of signing of agreement. The M/s. RPCL submitted the bank guarantee of Rs.15,91,02,019/- to RITES Ltd. as cover for security deposit and M/s. RPCL also submitted bank guarantee for Rs.16,80,48,772/- to RITES Ltd. as cover for mobilization advance. All the aforesaid bank guarantee were submitted by Sri A.K. Singh, CMD of M/s. RPCL & Sri D. K. Das, Construction manager, RPCL. The further case of the prosecution is that upon receipt of bank guarantees from M/s. RPCL, confirmation was obtained by RITES Ltd. from Bank of India who issue the said bank guarantees vide their various letters of confirmations. It is further alleged that receipt of confirmation of Bank of India the aforesaid Bank guarantee were issued by them and the net value of mobilization advance which come to the tune of Rs.16.8 Crores was paid to M/s. RPCL. On being checked with Bank of India, Club Side, Ranchi, regarding error in date in one of the Bank guarantee i.e. CBS: BG:/04-05: 30/25, it has been informed by the Bank that the said Bank guarantee has already been surrendered by M/s. RPCL and cancelled on 13.09.2004 and it was done without seeking any advise from RITES Ltd., the beneficiary of guarantee.
It is further alleged in the FIR that verification has been made regarding all the 27 Bank guarantee from Bank of India, Club Side Branch, Ranchi by sending them copies of the Bank guarantees and then it was discovered that all the bank guarantees available with RITES Ltd. and the signature of Bank Officer on the Bank Guarantees appears to be forged and 22 Bank guarantees out of these were already cancelled by M/s. RPCL. It is also alleged in the FIR that Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Construction Manager and Sri A.K. Singh, CMD of M/s. RPCL dishonestly and fraudulently submitted 27 forged bank guarantees to obtain mobilization advance of Rs.16.8 Crores from RITES Ltd. and 22 Bank guarantees were got cancelled connivance with official of Bank of India, Club Side, Ranchi leaving RITES Ltd. without cover against the mobilization advance of Rs.16.8 Crores paid by RITES Ltd. to M/s. RPCL. Of Officials Bank of India fraudulently and deliberately did not inform RITES Ltd. that it had cancelled 22 Bank guarantees. The RITES L
Prima facie evidence is sufficient to proceed with criminal proceedings, and the veracity of the allegations should be determined in trial.
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....
The court held that sufficient prima facie evidence of conspiracy and fund diversion justified the continuation of criminal proceedings without interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Under the PMLA, an applicant for bail must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45, which requires the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commi....
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where serious fraud allegations threaten public interest; individual settlements cannot outweigh collective societal harm.
FIR quashed where bank guarantee invocation during validity constitutes civil commercial dispute sans mens rea for cheating/breach of trust; complainant suppressed settlement, abusing process without....
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....
Illegal gratification – In a case where investigation is completed, Court is not required to appreciate evidence for quashing criminal proceeding – To appreciate evidence is function of Criminal Cour....
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.