Gopal Verma And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners by way of filing this petition, initially have prayed for quashing the FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 299 of 2011 (G.R.No. 761/2011) registered for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 353, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned CJM, Pakur.

During pendency of this petition, the police concluded the investigation and chargesheet has been submitted being Chargesheet No. 252 of 2016 dated 31.12.2016 under sections 406, 409, 353, 420 and 34 IPC. Thereafter cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 353, 420 and 34 IPC were taken and the court below proceeded against the petitioners and summoned them. 5 Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners in the FIR. He further submits that the company namely M/s E. Meditek (TPA) Services Limited has not been made accused and thus the petitioners being the officials, could not have been made accused in this case. He further submits that in fact, the work for preparation and distribution of medical cards were entrusted to the Oriental Insurance Company and the Oriental Insurance Company assigned M/s E Meditek (TPA) Service Limited to complete the work of preparation of smart card of the beneficiary of BPL families in Pakur District under the National Health Scheme. The work for preparation and distribution of Smart Cards to the BPL families in Maheshpur Block (District-Parkour), was not completed for which, the petitioners cannot be held responsible. He further submits that while hearing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners, the court called for counter affidavit and the same has been filed mentioning therein that the Company, namely, M/s E-Meditek (TPA) Services Limited prepared and distributed the health cards to BPL families, but so far as Block Maheshpur (district- Pakur) is concerned, the petitioners have refunded the money as the said cards have not been prepared and distributed. Thus, the lodging of FIR and the cognizance which has been taken, is absolutely bad.

Learned Special P.P submits that there are materials against the petitioners and thus the entire proceeding cannot be quashed.

In this case, there is allegation that Oriental Insurance Company was entrusted with the distribution and preparation of health smart card to the BPL families in the district of Pakur. The said company entrusted the work to M/s E. Meditek (TPA) Services Limited. So far as the Block-Maheshpur (district- Pakur) is concerned, though money was taken for the said work from the families, yet the cards were not prepared and distributed, thus the money has been defalcated. On this allegation, the present FIR has been registered. The police investigated the allegation and filed the chargesheet.

While going through the FIR, I find that on the statement recorded therein, definitely offence is made out. Since, prima facie, offence is made out, which needs investigation, I am not inclined to quash the FIR.

So far as order taking cognizance dated 30.8.2017 is concerned, I find that the court below, on receipt of chargesheet, has taken cognizance. What are the materials to attract the offence under Section 353 IPC as well as other sections, have not been whispered in the order impugned and summons have been issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. . The impugned order is absolutely silent on the issue as to what are the materials against the petitioners, who have been named in the personal capacity, which makes the impugned order defective. In most mechanical way, the composite orders i.e. the order taking cognizance and the order issuing summons have been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed a detailed order discussing the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order. 10 In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 30.8.2017 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. Thus, order impugned issuing summons to the petitioners is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed by way of quashing the order issuing summons to the petitioners.

The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.