The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS (or 482 Cr.PC) is limited to preventing abuse of process; it cannot be exercised to determine the veracity of factual allegations when the FIR on its face discloses a prima facie case of a cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. V. Kandwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 Cr.PC, praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in PRC Case No. 301/2020 pending before the Court of learned SDJM (M), Nazira and further prayed for quashing of the FIR as well as Charge Sheet and order of taking cognizance against the present petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined in the tea garden of the complainant as Field Manager on 06.04.2015 and worked with his honesty and dedication throughout his employment. But, in the year 2018 his wife started facing serious health issues including depression and high blood pressure and the petitioner was forced to apply for leave frequently for which the complainant had misbehaved him in front of the other co-workers for which the petitioner had to give his resignation to the complainant and left the job on 23.10.2018. Thereafter he joined as a Field Manager in Dholi Tea Estate and requested the complainant to return back his belongings from his residence which was allotted to the petitioner by the complainant during his employment. But, the complainant having personal animosity with the petitioner refused to let him to collect his belongings and kept the house locked. For this issue there was a verbal altercation between the petitioner and the complainant and finally he was allowed to collect his belongings from the premises, where he was accommodated.

4. After five months of his resignation, the complainant had registered the present FIR with the allegation of misappropriation of funds as well as stealing of chemicals used for tea plantations, which are false and baseless. These allegations were never made against the present petitioner during his employment in the complainant’s tea garden i.e. Suntok Tea Garden from the year 2015 to 2018, during his period of employment. The police also registered the case only on the basis of the FIR without making any preliminary enquiry which was lodged only due to some personal grudge by the complainant.

5. It is further stated that no case is made out against the present petitioner to fulfill the ingredients of Section 420 & 406 IPC and there is no such seizure to implicate the present accused/petitioner in the alleged offence. During his employment, the complainant never raised any dispute with regards to payment made to the workers at the tea garden prior to lodging of the FIR in the year 2019, which itself indicates that the allegations made in the present FIR are nothing but an afterthought and an attempt to settle the personal scores with the petitioner by lodging a false and frivolous allegation against the present petitioner. More so, 12 nos. of witnesses, who were cited in the Charge Sheet includes the clerk and workers of the company and they are not the independent witnesses rather they are dependent completely on the complainant.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner is of 71 years old person who has to take care of his 69 years old wife in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. He is not even medically fit to undergo trial in the present case in Sivasagar district, which is far away from his hometown.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Kandwal further submitted that the present case has been lodged after five months of his resignation and no complaint was filed against him while he was working under the said company and thus