Binod Prasad And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

The instant petition has been filed for the following relief: -

"for issuance of an appropriate order from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the first information report in G.R. Case No. 323 of 2010 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010 dated 9.6.2010 under Sections 379/419/420/468/469/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and all subsequent proceedings thereto now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa."

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per his information, the investigation has not yet been completed and accordingly chargesheet has not been submitted. He submits that no criminal case is made out against the petitioners and the action of the petitioners, is absolutely bonafide.

By referring to the allegations made in the FIR and submits that there is an allegation of misutilization of transport challans bearing Serial Nos. 0007801 to 0007900 which was initially issued for the period 2005-06 and was endorsed for the subsequent period also. He further submits that the petitioners had inadvertently lost the said challans and for this one information to the Police was also given on 11.04.2010 and the present FIR has been lodged on 05.06.2010 and in the FIR the date of missing the challans has been shown as 03.03.2010. The counsel submits that if any lost transport challan has been utilized by someone else, then the petitioner cannot be held to be liable.

Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-state, on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR. He submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioners were supposed to file monthly returns in connection with utilization of the transport challans, but according to the petitioner himself, the date of loss of the challans, was 03.03.2010, the date of information to the police was 11.04.2010 and in the instant case, the date of FIR is 05.06.2010. It has been alleged in the FIR that the monthly returns were not filed by the petitioners. The counsel submits that if the petitioner had filed the monthly returns and disclosed that the challans have been lost, the matter would have been different. He submits that the petitioners did not file the monthly returns and on this ground allegation has been made against the petitioners regarding involvement of the petitioners in misutilization of the challans. He submits that the fact remains, as submitted by the petitioners, that investigation has not yet been completed and accordingly charge-sheet has not been submitted. He submits that in such circumstances, the FIR may not be quashed.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the challans involved in this case were claimed to be lost on 03.03.2010, the information was claimed to have been given to the Police on 11.04.2010 and the FIR has been lodged on 05.06.2010 regarding misutilization of challans. It has been alleged in the FIR that the monthly returns was not filed by the petitioners and the challans were found to be utilized by someone else and accordingly the involvement of the petitioners has been alleged in the FIR.

So far as the FIR is concerned, this Court finds that prima facie allegations have been made against the petitioners. The investigation has not yet been completed and accordingly this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the criminal proceeding including FIR.

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed.

However, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all the points before the learned court below at appropriate stage as permissible under law. Dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties in any manner whatsoever.