AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
Heard the parties.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.3952 of 2024 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 174 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the case on being transferred is now pending in the Special Court, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi and consequential reliefs.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant of complaint case no.3952 of 2024, as an officer of Investigating Agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is the Investigating Officer of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 and the said ECIR/RNZO /25/2023 was registered on the basis of the information collected in connection with Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272 of 2023. Bhanu Pratap Prasad was the named accused person in Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272 of 2023 along with unknown accused persons. It was revealed that Bhanu Pratap Prasad was also an associate of the petitioner. The said Bhanu Pratap Prasad had hidden the register pertaining to the landed property admeasuring 8.86 acres approximately, which landed property is in possession of the petitioner; at his home i.e. the home of Bhanu Pratap Prasad and other connecting materials were also recovered from the said Bhanu Pratap Prasad. During the course of investigation of the said ECIR/RNZO/25/2023, the petitioner was summoned to personally appears for his statement in regard to all properties acquired/possessed by him. During the course of the investigation, seven summons were issued to him which were disobeyed by the petitioner, by citing frivolous reasons and evading the investigation by colouring the summons to be politically motivated. The details of the summons, the date of appearance of the petitioner mentioned in each of such summons, the reply received from the petitioner for his non-appearance, have been mentioned in detail in para-6 of the complaint. It appears that serial no.1 to 6 are summons while serial no.7 is a letter issued to the petitioner to provide a convenient date, time and place for recording his statement. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately disregarded the summons providing baseless pleas. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 20.01.2024 and then on 31.01.2024 after making vigorous efforts, the petitioner was finally arrested on 31.01.2024 after recording his statement under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002. It is further alleged that the petitioner has wilfully and knowingly disobeyed the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002. It was also alleged that the petitioner who was summoned, was bound to attend in person in terms of Section 50(4) of PMLA Act, 2002. Section 63(4) of PMLA Act, 2002 envisages that a person who intentionally disobeys the direction issued under Section 50 of PMLA Act, 2002 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that the petitioner is hampering the investigation of a serious offence of money laundering, involving proceeds of crime worth rupees several hundred crores and despite being a public servant, the petitioner has chosen to remain non-cooperative and reluctant to join investigation being conducted.
On the basis of the complaint, materials and documents annexed thereto, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is fixed on 17.01.2026 for consideration of explaining the substance of accusation to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.. It is next submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case without any basis. It is next submitted that the petitioner is the working president of a registered political party and formed the government in the State of Jharkhand and the petitioner has been serving as the Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand since December, 2019 till his resignation on 29.01.2024. It is next submitted that the petitioner has replied to every summons with sincerity and prior to the summons involved in the complaint case no.3952 of 2024, the opposite party sought to wrongfully implicate the petitioner in a purported stone chips mining scam in the State of Jharkhand and to that end, summons was served upon the petitioner, requiring him to attend at the office of opposite party on 03.11.2022. The opposite party is fully aware of all the assets and properties owned and possessed by the petitioner, but still the opposite party again issued summons to the petitioner on 07.08.2023 to attend his office on 14.08.2023 for recording of his statement in respect of properties owned, possessed and occupied by him and sources of acquisition of the properties under the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2023 undertook to provide any information/documents which may bonafide be required and called upon the opposite party to withdraw the summons. The opposite party again issued summons dated 18.08.2023 to the petitioner for the self-same purpose, for which the summon dated 07.08.2023 was issued. The opposite party again issued letter dated 29.12.2023 and it was further informed to the petitioner that despite issuance of six summons, the petitioner has failed to appear hindering the progress of the investigation in the present case. It is then submitted that purpose for which an officer of Enforcement Directorate has been empowered to summon any person, is either to give evidence or to produce the document. It is next submitted that the said purpose has already been fulfilled prior to filing of the present case, which is obtained from the perusal of the complaint petition itself. It is next submitted that the petitioner has duly responded every summons issued by the opposite party and has neither ignored nor wilfully disobeyed any summons. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the present petition is a dilatory tactic aimed at stalling the proceedings in MP/MLA Case No.02 of 2024 and this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as though the cognizance order was passed on 04.03.2024, this petition was presented more than one year, thereafter, on 11.04.2025. It is next submitted that inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. It is then submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by the well-reasoned order dated 04.03.2024, after application of judicial mind has taken cognizance of the said offences. It is next submitted that since the prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that the petitioner is attempting to convert the High Court into a trial court to examine the defence of the petitioner that there were valid reasons for his non-appearance which is procedurally improper. It is next submitted that at this stage, the Magistrate’s satisfaction regarding sufficient grounds for proceeding, is conclusive and at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is primarily concerned with the allegations made in the complaint.
In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi reported in (2009) 2 SCC 147, paragraph-23 of which reads as under:-
“23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.”
In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in (1964) 1 SCR 639, paragraph-8 of which reads as under:-
“8. Coming to the second ground, we have no hesitation in holding that the test propounded by the learned single judge of the High Court is wholly wrong. For determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. A number of decisions were cited at the bar in which the question of the scope of the enquiry under S.202 has been considered. Amongst those decisions are: Paranand Brahmachari v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 30; Radha Kishan Sao v. S. K. Misra, AIR 1949 Pat 36; Ramkisto Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 Pat 125; Emperor v. J.A. Pinan, AIR 1931 Bom 524 and Baidya Nath Singh v. Musppatt, ILR 14 Cal 141. In all these cases, it has been held that the object of the provisions of S. 202 is enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the complainant s evidence on oath. The courts have also pointed out in these cases that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction. The learned -Judges in some of these cases have been at pains to observe that an enquiry under S. 202 is not to be likened to a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-sec. (1) of S. 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complaint and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant.” (Emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424, paragraph-8 & 9 of which reads as under:-
“8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.
It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of the charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.” (Emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the opposite party next submits that the Magistrate is required to apply its judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence and at this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence of the complainant
Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that distinction between ‘sufficient ground for proceeding’ and ‘sufficient ground for conviction’, has been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578, paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-
“18. The expression “sufficient ground” used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 97 : 1958 Cri LJ 244 : 1958 SCR 618] , Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar [AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499 : (1961) 1 SCR 1] , Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash ChandraBose [AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397 : (1964) 1 SCR 639] , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. [(1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521] , Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan [1980 Supp SCC 499 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 438] , Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [(1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 361] and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471]”
Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 and submits that the petitioner fails to meet the strict judicial standards for quashing established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is known as four step tests.
Step-1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality.
Step-2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
Step-3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted.
Step-4. Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in that case, has held that once the Magistrate possesses undoubted discretion in the matter of taking cognizance, exercises the same judicially, it is not open for the High Court or even the Supreme Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether the allegations, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction.
Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the mandate of law is that a person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA Act is bound to appear in person and tell the truth. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and submits that in response to the submissions made by the petitioner that the petitioner has replied every summons, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that merely replying to the summons does not mean he complied the summons.
Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Mallya vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in (2015) 8 SCC 799, paragraph-13 of which reads as under:-
“13. From the tenor of the letter, it appears that it was not a case of merely seeking accommodation by the appellant but requiring a date to be fixed by his convenience. Such stand by a person facing allegation of serious nature could hardly be appreciated. Obviously, the enormous money power makes him believe that the State should adjust its affairs to suit his commercial convenience.” (Emphasis supplied)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the conduct of the accused person summoned in that case requiring the Enforcement Directorate to fix a date as per his convenience.
Learned counsel for the opposite party further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhisekh Banerjee vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in (2024) 9 SCC 22 and submits that therein it has been held that the persons who have been summoned are bound to appear and state the truth upon any subject in respect of which they are examined and in case of wilful disobedience, the person may be proceeded against under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, paragraph-31 of which reads as under:-
“31. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the summons issued to the appellants under Section 50 PMLA. As contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised agents as the officer may direct and are bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and to produce the documents as may be required. As per sub-section (4) thereof every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 IPC. As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174IPC.”(Emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the opposite party next submits that the petitioner’s non-appearance on each of the dates in respect of 7 summons which have been detailed in para-6 of the complaint was a distinct and complete offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and the replies for non-appearance of the petitioner in response to the summons on the ground of political conspiracy or produce a truth do not constitute a lawful excuse.
Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the petitioner’s contention that summons were illegal or that he had valid reasons to ignore the same is completely demolished by judicial record of his own previous petitions as the petitioner’s first attempt to bypass the jurisdictional High Court by filing writ petition (Crl.) No.378 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of the summons were not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.09.2023 and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court, though, pursuant to the said liberty, the petitioner filed W.P.(Cr.) No.787 of 2023 before this High Court and raised exact the same ground, he is indirectly raising now the ground that the summons are bad in law and there is no predicate offence alleged against him and the provisions of PMLA Act are draconian. But the division bench of this Court vide the detailed order dated 13.10.2023 categorically rejected the contentions relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the provisions under which summons were issued are valid and constitutional. It is next submitted that even after dismissal of the petition by the High Court, the Enforcement Directorate further issued further statutory summons specifically the summons at serial no.6 dated 10.12.2023 and the summons/letter no.7 dated 29.12.2023, yet the petitioner continued to evade appearance of both of hearings, thus, the offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code was complete. It is then submitted that Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not carve out any exception for persons holding high public office. On the contrary, the Rule of Law mandates that the law applies equally to all, regardless of their political stature. It is next submitted that the petitioner’s detailed recital of his political career is an attempt to create prejudice against the statutory functioning of the Directorate of Enforcement.
Learned counsel for the opposite party next relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. State of Tamil Nadu [SLP (Crl) No.1959 of 2024] dated 27.02.2024, submits that the Apex Court has categorically held in that case, that a person to whom summons are issued under Section 50(2) of the PMLA is obliged to respect and respond to the said summons. It is next submitted that the petitioner is attempting to create a false narrative of cooperation on his part with the Directorate of Enforcement, by mixing two separate and distinct investigations conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement. It is next submitted that the offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code is complete, the moment the summoned person intentionally omits to attend at the place and time specified in the summons. It is next submitted that the purpose of summons is timely investigation, hence, by delaying his appearance for over five months, the petitioner successfully stalled the investigation, allowed time for potential tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses and frustrated the immediate collection of facts, therefore, the eventual recording of his statement, which happened as a result of the Directorate’s persistence; cannot be termed as a petitioner’s sincerity. It is next submitted that the petitioner has bypassed the remedy of filing a criminal revision. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to section 528 of the BNSS, cannot conduct a mini trial, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
It is also a settled principle of law, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 wherein the settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person of a case cannot be considered before prosecution adduces evidence has been reiterated in paragraph-11 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
11.xxx The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build- up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs. (Emphasis supplied)
Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the competent authority under the PMLA issued six summons and the seventh is in shape of a letter to the petitioner and all the summons were received by the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the authority concerned, though, undisputedly he was legally bound to attend in person before the concerned officer. The only contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has justifiable reasons for not appearing before the officer concerned and that the petitioner has sent reply to each of the summons, but the fact remains that the petitioner did not appear. The other contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner after the first summons was issued to him, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, admittedly, there was no such order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India exempting the petitioner from appearance in response to the summons nor any interim order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India only granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Court, but the perusal of the complaint reveals that in para-6 of the complaint in serial no.4 of the summons, it has been informed by the petitioner that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(Cr.) No.378 of 2023, he filed a petition which has been registered as filing no.25476 of 2023, but as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the hearing of this case; that there was no such direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, though, the petitioner challenged summons up to the summon no.4 by filing a writ petition before this Court inter alia making prayer therein to declare under Section 50 & 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to be ultra vires to the Constitution, but the vires of the same sections having been already tested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same were found to be intra vires in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to dwell into that and the Division Bench also did not interfere with the summons issued as the same have become infructuous because of efflux of time.
Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he was justified by not appearing before the competent officer before whom he was supposed to appear as mentioned in the summons is a question of fact, for determination of which evidence is required to be adduced and admittedly the prosecution has not yet adduced its evidence before the trial court as the substance of accusation has not yet been explained to the petitioner.
It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, para 11 of which reads as under :-
“11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.” (Emphasis supplied)
that whether a criminal proceeding was malicious or not, is not required to be considered in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and the same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the materials available in the record, as already discussed in detail in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this is not a case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 at this stage.
Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of this Cr.M.P., the interlocutory application no.15938 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.