Pravat Kumar Tripathy vs Republic of India (CBI)

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

This Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to “the Cr.P.C.†for brevity) has been filed with

a prayer to quash the proceedings pending before the Learned Special C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar which arises out of SPE case No.42/14 under

Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 411, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.†for brevity) read with

Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the PCMCSB Act†for

brevity) and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

The facts leading to the present petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are briefly summarised as under:

(i) One Artha Tatwa Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ATMPCSL†for brevity) was registered by the Asst.

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneswar on 31.11.2011 under the name and style of “AT Group of Companies†and the said ATMPCSL

was purportedly engaged in the multiple businesses which included enrolling members with the promise to provide exorbitant and lucrative rates of

interest on their deposits.

(ii) In view of the promise of higher returns in terms of interest and incentives under various schemes floated by AT Group of Companies, the

informants along with other depositors invested huge amount with AT Group of Companies for the purchase of cheap flats/plots under various

projects/schemes undertaken by the AT Group of Companies represented by its Chief Managing Director, one Pradeep Kumar Sethi.

(iii) However, the said Group of Companies failed to deliver on their promise. Neither did it return the amount due to the depositors/investors as

agreed upon nor did it construct the flats as agreed upon.

(iv) When the investors/depositors attempted to contact the representatives of the AT Group of Companies seeking refund of the money, the said

Pradeep Kumar Sethi and others so connected to the companies fled from the office, thereby cheating the investors/depositors of their hard earned

money and savings.

(v) After collecting such deposits from the innocent depositors for some period, the Company allegedly completely stopped functioning and thus in that

process many investors who had invested money with the company were duped.

(vi) Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 was instituted on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Sri Sukumar Panigrahi on

07.02.2013 and which was registered under Sections 420, 120B and 406 of the I.P.C. against 13 accused persons on 10.07.2013.

(vii) During investigation of Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 44 of 2013, it was revealed that a Non-Banking Financial Company under the name of

“AT Group of Companies†were running their business with their branch offices in various places in Odisha including Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar,

Cuttack, Balasore, Baripada, Dhenkanal, Berhampur etc. and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sethi (main accused) was the Managing Director of the said Artha

Tatwa Multi Co-operative Society Ltd. and Artha Tatwa State Credit Co-operative Society. The registration of the Artha Tatwa Multi Purpose Co-

operative Society was granted on 03.11.2011 by the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar. It was also found

that the Company was indulging in wide propaganda, multiple awareness programmes, distributed leaflets and circulated brochures through agents to

attract investors to deposit money in the different schemes floated by the said Company. The aforesaid Co-operative Society collected funds from the

common people through various bodacious schemes. After a few months of such operation, the Company unilaterally stopped paying interest to the

depositors on the plea of income tax raid in the Company and cheated the depositors by dubiously duping them of their hard earned money. On

10.07.2013 Inspector-In-Charge, Kharvelnagar Police Station submitted a preliminary charge sheet against the accused persons.

(viii) While the Kharavelnagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 was under further investigation, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court by one Mr. Alok Jena seeking transfer of investigation from the State agencies to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was filed

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 09.05.2014 in W.P.

(C) No.413 of 2013, directed that the entire case under investigation by State would be transferred to the CBI for further investigation. Accordingly,

the cases like (1) Kharavelanagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 (ii) Badambadi P.S. Case No.5 of 2013, (iii) Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No.95 of 2013 (iv)

Angul P.S. Case No.282 of 2013 (v) Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 (vi) Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 (vii) Kujanga P.S. Case

No. 262 of 2013 and

(viii) Cantonment Road P.S. Case No.76 of 2013 would stand transferred to the C.B.I.

(ix) The investigation of the case was taken up by the C.B.I. on 05.06.2014 against the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi and various other co-

accused alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5, 6 of the

PCMCSB Act.

 (x) The investigation undertaken by the C.B.I. has since revealed that the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi, in furtherance of criminal

conspiracy with some other accused persons, floated and registered the said Artha Tatwa Group. The aforementioned Group through various lucrative

schemes with promise of fantastic returns, lured the depositors into investing money in what has now been uncovered as illegal money circulation

schemes. After verification, it has come to light that approximately a sum total of Rs.201,03,58,295/- was collected by the said AT Group from the

public through these schemes and the same is the outstanding amount due to the public as on April, 2012. Investigation has also, allegedly, revealed

that the said Pradeep Kumar Sethi and other co-accused associated with the company had also diverted huge amounts to the accounts of many other

influential personalities in order to obtain their patronage and to use their influence and clout to gain the trust of the innocent public.

Mr. Siba Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the sum and substance of the allegations against the present Petitioner are

limited to the fact that he, in his official capacity, as MLA and President of the Board of the Odisha Co-Operative Union had influenced the

registration of the ATMPCSL and has received money as quid pro quo for patronizing the main accused to run his illegal business.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the Petitioner made any false or fabricated

documents or influenced anyone to get ATMPCSL registered in violation of any law governing the field. The said ATMPCSL has been registered

after conforming to the requisite documents required by the authorities and after duly complying with necessary due diligence. Therefore, the

allegation that the Petitioner has influenced the registration of the ATMPCSL, even if taken on its face value, does not constitute an offence and as

such no offence is made out against the present Petitioner.

Insofar as patronizing the main accused is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the only allegation leveled against the

Petitioner is that the Petitioner awarded the Best Youth Co-operators award to the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi. This act has nothing to do

with the cheating or fraud committed on the public. Moreover, the award was decided in favour of Pradeep Kumar Sethi by a committee meant for

award selection. Therefore, singling out the Petitioner and accusing him of the offence of cheating and fraud on public is a sheer misuse of process of

law for which the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of any money trail emanating from the main accused

Pradeep Kumar Sethi involving the Petitioner. Hence, even if the allegation of receiving cash is believed, then there is no evidence to show that the

so-called money that has been alleged to have been given to the Petitioner is quid pro quo for his involvement in the crime. The learned counsel for

the Petitioner has also argued that the allegation of demand of financial assistance from accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi for Banki Mahotsav is also

untenable because mere demand in itself is not an offence and the prosecution has not brought any material to correlate the demand with any overt

act for attracting the charges of cheating and fraud.

Per contra, Shri Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner. It was contended that the Petitioner being a member of Odisha Legislative Assembly and also being the President of Odisha Co-operative

Union between 2008-2011, has strongly influenced the registration of the “Artha Tatwa Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd.â€, through the

then Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Society. The Petitioner was instrumental in awarding the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi with the “Best

Youth Co-operative Award†given by the Odisha Co-operative Union without any real remarkable contribution/achievements of the main accused.

He further contended that though there was a committee set up for the selection of the awardees, the present Petitioner being dominant in the

committee by virtue of his position of MLA and the President of Odisha Co-operative Union between 2008-2011 strongly recommended his name to

receive the said award. This award and the endorsement of a person of Petitioner’s stature has the propensity to influence public as the Petitioner

would have contributed to gaining the trust of the public in the activities of the main accused and his counterparts.

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has further submitted that the Petitioner had received money to the tune of Rs.42.00 lakhs cash in

exchange of such patronizing activities for the growth of the organization of the main accused and to run his illegal business. Further, it has been

submitted that the Petitioner had demanded financial contribution for Banki Mahotsav from the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethi which has

leveraging effect in patronizing the main accused. It has also contributed to popularising such schemes. He further contended that the allegations

against the Petitioner are very serious in nature and the Petitioner has allegedly mis-utilised his power as the MLA of Odisha Legislative Assembly

from Banki Constituency. Since the allegations are of the nature of an economic offence and innocent gullible investors were hoodwinked of their life

savings. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition deserved dismissed.

Heard the parties and perused the record. This Court is conscious of the need to view such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy

and involving a huge loss of investors' money and its impact on the economy. It is also no more res integra that the inherent powers of the Hon’ble

High Court have to be utilised cautiously while quashing an FIR. Before adverting to the facts of the case at hand, it becomes imperative that while

dealing with a case with respect to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it is necessary that this plenary power must be exercised with utmost care and caution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, while dealing with the scope of the power available under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. held as follows;

“131. Section 482 which corresponds to Section 561-A of the old Code and to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code proceeds on the same principle and

deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim “Quado lexa liquid alicui concedit, conceder

evidetur id sine quo ipsa, essuonpotest†which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself

could not exist.

The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and

undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice

for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very

plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.

The Judicial Committee in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18, 22] and Lala Jairam Das v. Emperor [(1945) 47 Bom LR 634] has taken the

view that Section 561-A of the old Code gave no new powers but only provided that those with the Court already inherently possessed should be preserved. This

view holds the field till date.

This Court in Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar [(1964) 2 SCR 336] had an occasion to examine the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its

jurisdiction when to be exercised. Mudholkar, J. speaking for himself and Raghubar Dayal, J. after referring to a series of decisions of the Privy Council and of the

various High Courts held thus:

“… [E]very High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the

ends of justice …. Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers

….â€​

xx                                        xx

                                      Â

xx                                                       xx

                                                           xx

Thus, the inherent power under this section can be exercised by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent abuse

of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice……..â€​

The width and amplitude of the sweep of the power available under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. necessitates that such exercise should be sparing

in nature and should be resorted to only in cases where the Court is of the unambiguous view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but

an abuse of the process of law. The present case fails to inspire such a thought.

The principle relating to the nature and scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has now, by and large, been crystallized by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala (2009) 14 SCC 466, relying upon its earlier judgment in the

case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein it has been observed as under:

The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have

been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few-- MadhavraoJiwajiraoScindia v. Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre, State of

Haryana v. BhajanLal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v. Rajendra

Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M.

Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous

analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing

of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with

mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint,

merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only

where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial

transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature

and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of

contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations

in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

In the same vein in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (2011) 12 SCC 437 , the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that:

 “11. Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. Section

482 is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The

inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly

administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The

jurisdiction under Section 482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.

In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the matter has been concluded by concurrent

finding of facts of the two courts below. Inherent powers under Section 482 include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending

before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent

abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given

case. The Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These powers are

neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.â€​

Â

It is also not in dispute that the present case relates to the commission of an economic offence and the involvement of present Petitioner has a

humongous effect on the prospective investors and their temptation to invest in such lucrative schemes. Such type of offences constitute a class apart

and need to be visited with a different approach. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took

an exacting view of economic offences and observed as follows:

“26. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's

economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. …

xx xx xx xx

…The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave

offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.â€​

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamal Porwal AIR 1987 SC 1321, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that:

“5. …….. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be

committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on

personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the

trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour

crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest………..â€​.

As poignantly observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 , while dealing with economic offences

the Court must bear in mind that the offence is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; rather these offences are well planned and

were committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the society at large. The Courts, therefore,

will do well to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. Thus, quashing of prosecution in cases involving economic offences leads to the entire

community being aggrieved.

In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner’s stance is that he has been falsely implicated and subjected to sheer abuse of the process of

law would require a basic level of scrutiny as the depositions made by various persons involved, when brought to this Court’s attention by the

learned counsel for the Opposite Party, mirrors a completely different story.

In the note dated 01.11.2010, Shri Satish Prasad Pati, Sub-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has stated that the main accused had

mentioned in his application that the society may raise funds by way of loan from State Cooperative Bank, Central Cooperative Bank, Government

Financing Institutions/ Mahila Bikash Samabay Nigam/ SC & ST Finance Corporation, Khadi Board, Small Industries Corporation and National

Handicraft Finance and Development Corporation. However, while processing the application of the Society, the said Mr. Pati had raised certain

objections as to how the views of the financing bank were not mentioned in this regard. One Ms. Gayatri Patnaik, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, vide her statement recorded on 27.09.2014 has stated that she was approached by the Petitioner (MLA from Banki Constituency and the

President of Odisha State Co-operative Union) several times, through call and also in person, to hasten the process of registration of ATMPCS,

following which she was asked to ‘handle’ and gloss over the objections raised by Shri Satish Prasad Pati, Sub-Assistant Registrar of Co-

operative Societies. The same ultimately led to the approval of the registration of ATMPCSL on 03.11.2010. This indicates that the Petitioner was

showing an unusual degree of anxiety for the early completion of the process of registration of the Co-operative Society of the principal accused and it

was in that context that the Petitioner had reached out to Mrs. Patnaik to hasten up the process of registration. The statement of Mrs. Patnaik,

further, indicates that on being so pressurized by the Petitioner, strict compliance of the registration procedure was not followed. It also indicates the

fact that the Petitioner was hand in gloves with the main accused in order to get the registration etc. of the AT Group done at any cost even by

glossing over the legal requirements and safeguards.

In the present case, the Petitioner’s involvement in felicitation of the main accused with the “Best Youth Co-operator Award†can be

traced by scrutinizing the statements of Shri Tareswar Das, Office Superintendent, Odisha State Cooperative Union. Shri Tareswar Das, vide note

dated 15.11.2010, has made a deposition to the effect that the Petitioner, who was officiating as the President of Odisha State Cooperative Union at

the relevant point in time, specifically directed that the main accused be awarded with the “Best Youth Co-operator†despite the fact that the bio-

data of the main accused had hardly any mention regarding his involvement in any sort of cooperative movement or his contribution to any sort of

cooperative activity which was the basic criteria for being eligible for consideration for such a prestigious award. It was out and out a favourable

recommendation for such award.

With respect to Petitioner’s plea that he has been falsely implicated for allegedly having received a kickback worth Rs.42.00 lakhs from the

main accused as quid pro quo for aiding him to run his illegal business/ operations, the depositions made by one Shri Tapan Mohanty, the then Branch

Manager, Artha Tatwa Group of Companies is of great significance. Shri Tapan Mohanty, vide his statements dated 05.12.2014 has stated that he

was aware that the main accused used to give money in cash to the Petitioner for getting his patronage since the Petitioner was a sitting MLA of the

ruling party and an important personality in the coopearative setting and was, therefore, known to be very influential. He further stated that the main

accused had confessed in a discussion prior to his arrest that he had given an amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs to the Petitioner. The principal accused had

also revealed that he had given kickbacks to the Petitioner in furtherance of early registration of Artha Tatwa Multi-purpose Cooperative Society

since there were some unresolved issues due to which the registration of society was getting delayed. In his depositions, Shri Tapan Mohanty has also

corroborated the fact that the principal accused had also given in cash to the Petitioner for securing for him and ultimately, felicitating him with the

“Best Youth Co-operatorâ€​ Award.

Further, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party brought to this Court’s notice that the Petitioner’s involvement with the main accused

can be established by way of the Forensic Voice Examination Report dated 09.10.2014 whereby the Petitioner’s voice sample taken from a

telephonic conversation with the main accused was subjected to Voice Spectrographic Analysis. The common and clearly audible sentences/words,

namely “Sethi Babuâ€, “Vartaman Mota Motiâ€, “Depositor Maneâ€, “Micro-finance†etc. were taken into account for the said

analysis. It thus contains something more which also establishes prima facie close link between the Petitioner and the principal accused and also Artha

Tatwa group. Although this aspects requires thorough trial to establish the truth, any act of interference by this Court will jeopardize a fair trial.

This Court is alive to the fact that mala fides cannot be proved only by direct evidence. Such issues can be proved or, may be, inferred, by

circumstances. It is a well known adage “men may lie but the circumstances do notâ€. The entirety of circumstances, as fully detailed above,

showcase that the Petitioner was prima facie aware of the nature of the business of the principal accused and knowing the background fully well he

consciously chose to bless the principal accused with his patronage in exchange for monetary benefits. It is also pertinent to note that when we

discuss the psyche of the lay and laity, the mere optics of an elected representative holding public office patronising someone/some business, strikes a

wave of confidence and lends immense credence and goodwill to the person/business group concerned.

It is trite law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3077 , that the scope and

ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions. Thus, it

would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Court under the said provisions are wide but they should be exercised in

appropriate cases, i.e., ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which the courts alone exist. The inherent powers

do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim and caprice. The powers have to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, where the Court is convinced, that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an affront on the

process of the Court or that the ends of the justice beseech that the proceedings be quashed.

It is well settled legal position that the High Court should sparingly and cautiously exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code to prevent

miscarriage of justice. In State of U.P. Vs. O.P. Sharma (1996) 7 SCC 705, a three- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reviewed the

existing law on the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the complaint, charge-sheet or the First Information

Report and held that the High Court would be loathe and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code or under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court would consider whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would

tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Social stability and order is the prima donna which necessitates that all social malaise and evil kneel

before her in strict obedience. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before embarking upon the exercise of the inherent power vested

in the Court.

It is, therefore, the settled position of law that this inherent power should be exercised by the High Court sparingly where parties are not left with

any other remedy so as to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the Code or to secure the ends of justice. Such a

power is not be invoked or exercised on the mere asking. Furthermore, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460., the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has laid down that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as borne from the record of the case

and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that

no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may

interfere. Where the factual foundation of an offence has been laid down, the courts must be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings

even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied, if there is otherwise substantial compliance with

the requirements of the offence. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not

at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of

justice and for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the sub-ordinate Courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to

interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. The Court is primarily concerned with the allegations taken as

a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, whether or not it is an abuse of the process of Court culminating in injustice. The power

cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.

In the present case, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offences alleged

therein. The allegations contained in the FIR are grave and sight cannot be lost of the fact that a substantial amount of hard earned money of innocent

people which is at stake. The Petitioner’s patronization was sought by the principal accused in order to further the unscrupulous business by

striking a sense of confidence in the heart of the investors. Consequently, it becomes imperative that the matter be subjected to the rigor of thorough

trial in respect of the alleged offences to meet the ends of justice. Without a trial, it is not possible to fathom or proper to hold whether or not the

allegations made against the Petitioner are made out or not.

The crime committed by the Petitioner and other co-accused persons is not a crime against any individual but a crime against public at large having

wide ramifications over the society at large. The innocent depositors, being lured by the principal accused, invested their money with the AT Group

and ultimately lost their hard earned life savings due to the aforesaid acts of the accused persons. Economic offences pose a significant danger to a

country's economy at large and threaten to the law of the land. It is but another endeavor to fulfil an individual’s avarice over the interest of the

society. Economic offences are perpetrated at the cost of the interest of the common man.

Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, its serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society and

misappropriation of huge sums of public money, this Court finds no ground to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. at this stage. This CRLMC

is, therefore, dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the learned trial court shall proceed with a fair trial uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

Ordered accordingly.

…………………………………….