Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Preetpal Belchandan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 2715 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.P.Sharma, M.L.Saket
For the Respondents: Shashank Thakur
The High Court will not quash an FIR or criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) where the charge sheet has been filed and an investigation suggests the existence of a cognizable offence, leaving valid defenses to be adjudicated during trial.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Scope of interference - Held, jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only when allegations, if taken at face value, do not constitute a cognizable offence - Court cannot inquire into reliability or genuineness of allegations at the stage of quashing.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former President of a Cooperative Bank, sought to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged financial irregularities, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds during the disbursement of grants for construction of go-downs and implementation of a one-time settlement scheme. The petitioner contended that the acts were performed in good faith, in accordance with board decisions and RBI guidelines, and that the audit reports found no financial irregularities.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is ongoing. The plea that only the petitioner was arrayed as an accused while other board members were not, does not constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR. The Court held that it is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers to stall criminal proceedings at this stage.
Issues: Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner merit being quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, based on the contention that the acts were administrative/official decisions conducted without criminal intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to quash is to be exercised sparingly. Where a charge sheet has been filed and the investigation is complete, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to raise all pleas of innocence and legal justifications before the trial court rather than seeking preemptive quashing through the High Court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to fir and challenge thereof. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding lack of individual liability and statutory compliance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state's contentions regarding existence of prima facie evidence. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning against quashing fir due to existing charge sheet and trial. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
24/10/2024
1. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 213/2021 dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, and further to quash the entire criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. RCC/10816/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg.
2. Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an ex parte enquiry was conducted by the respondent State authority concerned and thereafter at the instance of the Collector, Durg, F.I.R. No. 213/2021 was registered by the Police against the petitioner and thereafter charge sheet has also been filed only against the petitioner. Perusal of contents of the FIR as well as charge sheet would shows that on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report and at the instance of Collector Durg, instant crime is registered against the petitioner otherwise there was no occasion for the police to register offence against the petitioner. The case of prosecution is totally based on an ex-parte enquiry report. Mr. Sharma further submits that with respect to the instant FIR, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 210/2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2023, though this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant protection to the petitioner by order dated 12.05.2021 which was continued till order dated 28.06.2023.
3. It is submitted that all the Collectors have a status of District Magistrate and ought not to have directed for registration of FIR to any officer of the Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Durg (for short 'Bank') as the same is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and it is for the authorities concerned to take individual decisions in respect of the authority conferred on them and particularly the said officers were reluctant to initiate any criminal proceedings, in the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. A further perusal of the FIR as well as entire charge sheet will reveal that for registration of FIR certain memos and alleged enquiry report dated 03.02.2021 has been relied upon. The said enquiry report dated 03.02.2021 has been prepared ex-parte and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The FIR as well as charge sheet reveals that during the period from 08.04.2014 to 12.05.2020 the Board of Directors have sanctioned 234 cases of construction of go-downs and allegedly for which no permission has been obtained from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and for the purpose of go-downs Rs.1313.50 Lakhs has been provided as grant and thus caused a loss to the bank. The petitioner is further charged with, that during the period from 05.08.2016 to 10.06.2010 the petitioner being the member of Board of Directors has sanctioned 186 cases of onetime settlement and granted concession/ rebate of Rs. 175.61 lakhs to different borrowers and thus caused loss to the Bank.
4. Mr. Sharma submits that earlier the term of the Board of Directors of the Bank has ended on 25.04.2013 and since the election could not be held due to which as per Section 49 (8) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act , the powers of the bank has been vested to the Registrar and the then Registrar was the authorized officer
