IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial.
(2) Aspect about complicity of a person who was involved in forgery is a disputed question of fact and same will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence which can be done only during trial and not at such a nascent stage when summons is served.

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In both these appeals the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the High Court of Jharkhand by impugned judgment quashed the summoning order dated 31.01.2022 as well criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate in connection with Case No. 30 of 2019 corresponding to proceedings pending in court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Palamau.

3. The appellant challenging the order impugned is the original complainant to an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against M/s SS Infrastructure Co and its Partners (Respondent No. 2 – Santosh Kumar Choudha in SLP (Crl.) No. 1500/2024; Respondent No. 2 – Sandhya Choudha and Respondent No. 3 – Rajeev Choudha – in SLP (Crl.) No. 1660/2024). Accordingly, the said FIR No. 38 of 2019 came to be registered on 02.04.2019. In this said FIR it is alleged that the all the above mentioned respondents have committed offences under Sections 384, 389, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accusation was two-fold. Firstly: the complainant had worked as a sub-contractor and an amount due to him was not paid by the main contractor i.e. Respondent no. 2 – Santosh Kumar Choudha. The second allegation is of more serious nature namely the Respondent No. 2 - Santosh Kumar Choudha, was successful in obtaining the contract fraudulently by submitting forged and fabricated documents.

4. The said contract was in respect of a project namely Namna Ankiat Project and the work under this project was of extension, restoration and modernisation under the Jinjoyi Irrigation Scheme in district Palamau, Jharkhand. The estimated cost of the work was of Rs.35,18,11,422/-. In response to the offer, the respondent firm M/s SS Infrastructure Co and its Partners submitted its bid along with the documents. The requisite condition was to have past experience of construction to the tune of Rs.18,40,00,000/-. It was alleged that though the respondent firm had an experience of construction of Anikat (Check Dam) over Mandi River and the work contract was only for a sum of Rs.3,40,00,000/- but by submitting forged and fabricated documents, the respondent firm claimed that the work undertaken by the firm under tender no. 1797 was of Rs.18,40,00,000/-.

5. Subsequent to the lodging of First Information Report, the Respondent No. 2 – Santosh Kumar Choudha, apprehending his arrest directly approached High Court of Jharkhand by filing an application for seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court of Jharkhand considering submissions on hearing the parties rejected the said bail application.

6. It may not be out of place to mention that the High Court considered the serious nature of allegation against the appellant of being in conspiracy with the officers and other persons in the higher echelons of the State Government having defrauded the State Government of huge amount of money, there is requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, and thus, declined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail in favour of the Respondent No. 2 - Santosh Kumar Choudha.

7. The investigating agency initially submitted its first final report on 31.10.2020. The investigation agency submitted final report on the grounds of lack of evidence. The appellant being aggrieved and not satisfied by this final report filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate in his detailed order dated 12.02.2021 observed that there are serious lapses and defects in the investigation and further investigation is necessary to meet the ends of justice. The investigating agency again citing the same reason that no sufficient evidence is available against the accused, submitted the second final report. The learned Magistrate was pleased to observe that the statement