Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 220 (JHR)

M. P. Jain v. State of Jharkhand

2003-02-17

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report/Investigation against the petitioner in Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 126 of 2002 dated 24.3.2002 which has been registered under sections 406, 420, 120/B of the Indian Penal Code against four accused persons including the petitioner. 3. The facts of the matter are that the informant Deepak Prakash lodged a written report to the officer in charge, Sadar P.S. Hazaribagh on 24.3.2002 against four persons including the petitioner, which was registered as Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 126 of 2002. The informant has alleged in the First Information Report that he had talk with a Company namely M/s Kendall Premium Health Care Products Ltd. some time in the month of December 1995 who deals with the material relating to the health care with regard to his business. 4. It is alleged that the informant had a talk with his two of the officials namely Mr. Sushant Kumar Das and Praveen Kumar Jain of M/S Kendall Premium Health Care Products Ltd. at his residence at Hazaribagh for starting business with the Company, and it was decided that the business transaction will be started after agreement which will take place in the month of January next year. It is further alleged that on 9.1.1996 an agreement was made between M/S Kendall Premium Health Care Products Ltd. New Delhi and M/S S.B. Enterprises, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, the company of the informant. The agreement had taken place at New Delhi, in the office of M/S Kendall Premium Health Care Products Ltd. The agreement was signed by the Informant on behalf of M/S S.B. Enterprises, Ranchi and by Mr. Sumaj Jain on behalf of M/S Kendall Premium Health Care Product Ltd. New Delhi. According to that agreement the Company of the Informant M/S S.B. Enterprises, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi was made C and F agent (South Bihar) in respect of the medical equipment products of the company. As per the agreement the informant paid Rs. Five lakhs to M/s Kendall Premium as security money. It is also alleged that according to the agreement M/S Kendall Premium should have supplied the articles to the informant's company but the same was not supplied inspite of several reminders on telephone and personal contacts with them at Deihi. As per the agreement the informant paid Rs. Five lakhs to M/s Kendall Premium as security money. It is also alleged that according to the agreement M/S Kendall Premium should have supplied the articles to the informant's company but the same was not supplied inspite of several reminders on telephone and personal contacts with them at Deihi. Thereafter the informant became suspicious and doubted that the company did not intend to do business but only to grab their money then the informant asked that company to return the security money. After several talks and reminders the company returned Rs. Two lakh only to the informant. 5. It is further alleged that after several round of talks and reminders the company issued a cheque, bearing no. 389610 dated 30.8.1999 of United Bank of India, South Extension, New Delhi-49 in favour of the informant but the same was not realized as the payment of the money was stopped by the accused officials of the company. The accused officials of the company has not returned balance dues of Rs. Three lakhs out of Rs. Five lakhs deposited as security money to the informant. The further case of the petitioner is that the company and his officials (1) Mr. M.P. Jain, Director (2) Mr. Sumaj Jain (3) Mr. Praveen Jain (4) Mr. Sushank Kumar Das, Vice President conspired together and misappropriated a sum of Rs. Three lakhs, interest and the commission accrued therein. 6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the facts alleged in the F.I.R., even if they are taken at their entirety, do not make out any offence under sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and at best it can be said to be a case of civil nature. It has further been contended that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. It is also contended that from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report, it does not disclose that there was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement. 7. It has further been contended that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. It is also contended that from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report, it does not disclose that there was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal vs. Narayan K. Patodia (2000)4 S.C.C. 447 has contended that where only F.I.R. was registered and no investigation has yet commenced, the High Court cannot quash the F.I.R. but when the investigation has already commenced or completed as in the present case and only final form has to be submitted, the High Court can appreciate the evidence collected, by the police during investigation and come to a different finding other than the police who after completion of investigation has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient material for submission of charge sheet. 8. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions. 2000(3) Supreme Today 13. 2001 (8) Supreme Today 216. A.I.R. 1989 S.C.2222. 9. By order dated 23.8.2002, notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 i.e. to the informant, who has appeared through Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate, has also filed counter affidavit. On the last day when the matter was taken up on 4.2.2003, the learned A.P.P. Mr. P.K. Sahay was directed to inform this court regarding the present position of the investigation. Mr. Sahay A.P.P. on the basis of the police case diary has submitted that the investigation is complete and according to the police, the evidences collected during investigation are sufficient for submission of chargesheet against all accused persons including the petitioner and now only formal final form has to be submitted. The learned A.P.P. has further relied on paras 7,8,9,46 and 52 of the case diary in support of his submission. 10. The learned A.P.P. has further relied on paras 7,8,9,46 and 52 of the case diary in support of his submission. 10. Now the point for consideration in this case is as to whether at the stage, when police has already completed its investigation and has come to conclusion that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation for submission of charge sheet and only formal final form is to be filed in court, whether the High Court can exercise powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can come to a different finding other than the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency after scrutinizing the evidence collected by the police, consider the defence of the accused and thereafter quash the F.I.R. The answer can only be in negative. In a number of decision, the Apex court has cautioned the High Court in this regard while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R., reference may be made to the case of Mustaq Ahmed vs. Md. Habibur Rehman Faize (1996 Cr. L.J. 1877), wherein the Supreme Court held that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and a note of caution was given to the effect the power of Criminal Proceedings should be exercised in rarest of the rare case. 11. In the language of the Supreme Court, quashing of investigation or chargesheet even before taking cognizance would amount to "killing a still born child" (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1260) 12. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, I am of considered view that at the stage, as in the case in hand, when the police has in fact after completion of the investigation found sufficient materials for submission of charge sheet, the High Court cannot substitute its own view after weighing the evidence collected by the police during investigation and quash the entire investigation even before the cognizance is taken. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed.