Soni Sao @ Soni Saw And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No.184 of 2022 whereby F.I.R. has been registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

The first and principal ground of challenge is that a definite prayer has been made in Para 22 of the complaint petition for institution and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pursuant to which the learned Magistrate forwarded the same and police case has been registered. However, in the affidavit, there is no statement that the complainant had moved the police station for institution of the case which is in-contravention to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Babu Venkatesh Versus The State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of complainant submits that in para 21 of the complainant there is specific averment that the complainant had approached Bank More Police Station and no action was taken in the matter and suggested the complainant to file the case.

Before proceeding further it shall be desirable to take note of the direction of the Apex Court made in Priyanka Srivastava case( supra) 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

The complaint states in para-21 that complainant had approached the concerned police station without success for institution of the case. The complaint petition is supported by an affidavit. This Court is of the view that complaint supported by the affidavit is substantial compliance with the above guidelines. In any case if the petitioner has made a false statement he can be liable for prosecution for perjury.

Complainant is a Deputy General manager in M/s Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd .Case of the complainant/informant is that accused no.1 is the owner and proprietor of M/s Shri Ambey Auto Centre M/s deals in supply of two wheelers particularly of HONDA brand. It is alleged that huge sum to the tune of Rs. 6,908,892 was misappropriated by the accused persons under a criminal conspiracy and on events with the 86 purchasers of the two wheelers. Rs. 40,54,264 was transferred from time to time in the accounts of M/s Shri Ambey Auto Centre.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for quashing the F.I.R. in view of the settled law that criminal proceeding at this stage should be quashed only in exceptional circumstances.

Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.