Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 925 (JHR)

Sarwan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-12

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The two petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the FIR being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2004, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against them. 2. According to the FIR lodged by one Lalan Kumar Thakur, S.I. of Police, a telephonic message was received from the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 25.2.2004 to the effect that in the premises of Pradip Hard Coke Industries, on the basis of forged papers, slurry coal on several trucks was to be unloaded illegally. On this information, the informant proceeded along with other Police Officials and reached at 1.00 a.m. on 26.2.2004 in the joint premises of Pradip Hard Industries and Maa Parwati Industries. There it was found that three trucks loaded with slurry coal were standing. From two trucks, slurry coal was being unloaded by labourers. On enquiry, the labourers disclosed that all the three trucks had come from Rajrappa Washery. The truck drivers and the khaLasi had gone to take their meals. The labourers, who were unloading the truck, fled away from there seeing the police party and thereafter, the three trucks loaded with several tonnes of slurry coal, were seized along with the eight tonnes of slurry coal, which were unloaded. On search of cabins of the truck, it was found that the slurry coal loaded on the trucks, were loaded from Rajrappa area for and in favour of M/s. Classic Chemicals, Daltonganj. It further revealed from all the Challans, the word Daltonganj was erased and in that place, stamp of Area Sales Manager, Rajrappa was fixed and thereby, a forgery was committed and instead of transporting the same to the Classic Chemicals, Daltonganj. the slurry coals were being unloaded in the joint premises of Pradip Hard Industries and Maa Parwati Industries, Govindpur, Dhanbad by manipulating and forging the documents. It has been further alleged in the FIR that in course of inspection of the said premises of the aforesaid industries, it was found that Bhanu Shankar Tiwary was the owner of the Truck No. BHG 7974 whereas, Sarwan Singh (petitioner No. 1) was the owner of the Truck No. JH 11-A 6227. The petitioner No. 2 Satpal Singh was the owner of Truck being registration No. BHG 6227. The petitioner No. 2 Satpal Singh was the owner of Truck being registration No. BHG 6227. At that time, one another truck being Registration No. BHU 7666 also arrived there loaded with slurry coal and then the papers of that truck was also checked and verified from which, it appeared that the Challans of said truck were also issued from Rajrappa Washery in favour of different industry (Small Scale Industries) of Daltonganj but the word Daltonganj was erased and there also by manipulation, the documents were forged. The truck as well as the slurry loaded with the said truck was also seized by the Police and the FIR was lodged. 3. According to the petitioners they are simply the owners of the truck and they had not committed any offence. Their vehicles being the commercial vehicles, were taken on hire by the customers for transportation of coal and they were in no way related or connected either with the coal slurry business nor connected with the alleged offence because their vehicles remained in the possession of the drivers. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from the entire allegations made in the FIR, it does not transpire that the petitioners being the owners of the aforesaid commercial vehicles, were present there at the spot or they had any knowledge regarding manipulation or forgery made in the relevant papers. It is further submitted that in the case of Abhas Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. Cr WJC No. 33 of 199i (R), the Division Bench of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, by order dated 26.3.1999, has held that the diversion of coal does not constitute an offence. The said order has been made Annexure-2 to this writ petition. 5. From the allegations made in the FIR, it appears that it has been specifically alleged therein that slurry in question was to be delivered to a different parties at Daltonganj which had linkage of coal but by committing forgery in the papers, different endorsement were made therein and accordingly, it was alleged that on the basis of forged papers, those slurry coal, which were meant for others, were being illegally unloaded in the factory premises of Pradip Hard Industries and Maa Parwati Industries. 6. 6. There is no dispute that the trucks which were found the alleged occurrence and standing in the factory premises of Pradip Hard Coke Industries, belonged to the petitioners. From the orders which has been annexed by the petitioners in this petition as contained in Annexure 2 series, it appears that in those cases, it was found that the delivery orders were issued for loading hard coke and as per the allegations in the FIR, the hard coke was being transported by trucks to Faridabad in place of Jamsedpur and to Delhi in place of Deoghar. In that situation, it was held that even assuming the allegations to be correct, no offence was committed by transporters. From the aforesaid orders annexed with the, petition, it does not appear that in those cases, there was any allegation that delivery orders or the Challans or the papers with regard to the coal were in any manner manipulated or forged and therefore, the facts of those cases are quite different from the facts and allegations made in the FIR or the present case. 7. The fact as to whether the petitioners were in any way involved or connected with the alleged offence or not, or whether the slurry coal was being loaded in the premises of those two industries i.e. Pradip Hard Industries and Maa Parwati Industries validly or not, are the questions which has to be investigated by the Police. The investigation of a case on the basis of FIR, which has been registered by the Police, is prerogative of the Police and this Court, in exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr PC, cannot examine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations and thereby thwart the investigation at its initial stage. The petitioners, if are not in any way involved or connected with the alleged offence, they can very well cooperate with the Investigating Officer and if it is found that there is no evidence or material against them, then the Police may not even submit charge-sheet against them. 8.The Supreme Court, in a series of cases/time without number, has cautioned the High Courts that the powers under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the investigation or the FIR, should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases and not as a matter of course. 8.The Supreme Court, in a series of cases/time without number, has cautioned the High Courts that the powers under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the investigation or the FIR, should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases and not as a matter of course. The falsity or truthfulness of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be decided by High Court at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of the FIR/Investigation as prayed by the petitioners cannot be allowed. 10. Consequently, having found no merit, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.