Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 271 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 149 of 2012 including the order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report is that on information that illegally obtained scrap of bronze, brass and other metal were kept in several gunny bags in front of the V.I.P. gate of the Railway Station the same was searched and several articles were recovered and seized. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegation Chutia P. S. Case No. 149 of 2012 was instituted and after investigation was conducted charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 29.05.2013 for the offences punishable under Section 414/34 of the India Penal Code. 4. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P., for the State. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated merely on suspicion but subsequently the petitioners had produced all the relevant records to suggest that the petitioners had duly purchased the seized commodities from Vidya Trading Company Nayaratna Lane, Kolkata. It has been submitted that an application was preferred by the petitioners for releasing of the articles and the report which was sought for by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi from the police had disclosed about the genuineness of the articles and accordingly the same was released in favour of the petitioners. It has been submitted that since it was detected by the police about the genuineness of the articles the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P., has submitted that release of the articles in favour of the petitioners cannot be equated with quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as one of the grounds for release was that no other claimants had come forward to claim the article seized. 6. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P., has submitted that release of the articles in favour of the petitioners cannot be equated with quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as one of the grounds for release was that no other claimants had come forward to claim the article seized. It has also been submitted that after investigation the police having found the case to be true had duly submitted charge-sheet pursuant to which cognizance has been taken and at this stage it would not be a justifiable exercise in quashing the entire criminal proceedings. 7. The basis for quashing of the criminal proceedings seems to be the report which was submitted by the police with respect to seizure of the articles. The report of the police suggests that save and except the petitioners, there were no claimants to the seized articles. 8. It is not in dispute that when the articles were found in suspicious condition near the Railway Station no one had come forward to produce the documents to suggest the genuinity of the ownership over the articles of the petitioners. 9. In the case diary which was called for, it appears that the Investigating Officer had gone to Kolkata to conduct the veracity of the documents which facts has been mentioned at Paragraph 26 of the case diary. The entire transaction appear to be as a result of oral orders given by the petitioners. Merely on the basis of such disclosure the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed as it is the matter of evidence during trial to decide on the veracity, truthfulness or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioners. 10. This Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to conduct a roving enquiry or sift through the evidences in coming to the conclusion whether an offence against the accused is made out or not. Prima facie there appears to be an offence committed by the petitioners under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code which gets vouched by virtue of filing of the charge-sheet. Such circumstances, therefore, do not invite entertaining this application as the entire factual aspect can best be thrashed out in course of the trial. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts, there being no merit in this application the same is, hereby, dismissed.