IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
M/s Ranchi Expressways Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 4147 of 2022
Decided On : 21-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the filing of the fir (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding prosecution and charges (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's review of investigation and material evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal standards for quashing proceedings (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion of the judgment and dismissal of the petition (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. R.S. Mazumdar appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr. Prashant Pallav, appearing for the CBI.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.01.2021 passed in connection with R.C. Case No. 02 (A)/2019-R, whereby learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi, was pleased to find a prima facie case for proceeding under Sections 120B read with Section 409, 420, 477A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and accordingly took cognizance of the same, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate-XVI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution case has been initiated on the basis of the FIR registered by the CBI being R.C. Case No. 02 (A)/2019-R dated 12.03.2019. He submits that it has been alleged in the F.I.R., inter-alia, that on P.Ε. 02 (A)/2018-R was registered in C.B.Ι., ACB, Ranchi 07.08.2018 in compliance of the order dated 25.07.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 3503 of 2014 and 2470 of 2015 in the matter of "The Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India".
4. He further submits that during the course of hearing in the above stated PILs, Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, vide order dated 14.11.2017, directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), New Delhi, for inquiry into the matter, in which the Project of NH-33 from Ranchi to Jamshedpur was executed by the Agency and supervision by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and advances that were given by the lending banks without commensurate physical progress in the execution of such a large public project involving Rs. 1655 Crores over a period of 5 years since its commencement in December, 2012. In compliance to order dated 14.11.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, SFIO submitted its Enquiry Report, in sealed cover before the Hon'ble Court, which was opened on 14.06.2018.
5. He then submits that the above report pertains to the project of 4-laning of NH-33 from 114 Km to 277.50 Km. (Approx 163.50 Kms) on the Ranchi Rargaon Jamshedpur section. NHAI had invited bids for the above project on annuity basis on Design, Built, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) pattern during March, 2010. After completing the process, Letter of Award was given to M/s. Madhucon Project Ltd. on 18.03.2011, it being lowest bidder. As per requirement, a Special Purpose i.e., M/s. Ranchi Expressways Ltd. (Concessionaire) was incorporated by Madhucon Group, to execute this project. Shri K. Sinivasa Rao, Shri N. Seethaiah and Shri N. Prithvi Teja were the founding Directors of the said company. For this purpose, the concessionaire M/s. Ranchi Expressways Ltd. entered into a Concession Agreement with NHAI on 20.04.2011, whereupon the project was entrusted to the Concessionaire for execution.
(i) He further submits that it has been alleged that the estimated cost of the four-laning project was Rs. 1655 Crores, as per the Common Loan Agreement (CLA) dated 31.10.2011, between Ranchi Expressways Ltd. and Consortium of Banks. Initially a sum of Rs.1191.60 Crores was to be founded by a consortium of 15 banks led by Canara Bank, however, the same came down to Rs. 1151.60 Cores, as State Bank of Travancore backed out. Consequently, the contribution by the promoters was increased from Rs. 463.40 to Rs. 503.40 Crores. The SFIO, concluded in its Report that a total of Rs. 264.01 crore was not made available for the purpose of the project/diverted, which is as de

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.
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, focusing on whether a prima facie case exists based on the allegations.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where serious fraud allegations threaten public interest; individual settlements cannot outweigh collective societal harm.
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
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....
Quash of FIR - A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any off....
At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecutor are not meticulously judged.
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.