Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 9 (MEG)

Shashi Chaurasia v. State of Meghalaya

2019-02-05

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. By medium of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashment of Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 13 (03) 2018 corresponding GDE No. 15 dated 09.03.2018 under Sections 420/468/418 IPC, is sought. 2. Learned AG today submitted a copy of the status report which has been sent to him by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has concluded that during the investigation, the case appeared to be purely civil in nature and no criminal intention is forthcoming. Para 13 of the status report is quoted hereunder: "During investigation, self contacted complainant Shri Mathuradas Sen and informed him to produce the owner of M/S. AKB North East Energy solution, who took charge after Shri Shashi Chourasia and his party left from their factory but till date he could not produce the same. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances and after thorough investigation, it is found that Shri Shashi Chourasia and his party on completion of the work submitted a final commissioning report on the 8th September, 2014, the same was received by the management of the factory with signature and seal, fully satisfied. Further, after thorough perusal of the service contract terms and condition it is found that Arbitration clause Sl. No. 1, and Sl. No. 4, it is clearly mentioned that, if any, disputes arises between the two parties, the same shall be sought and settle amicably through negotiations. On the above facts and circumstances the case appeared to be purely civil suit in nature and no criminal intention was involved in it." 3. In view of the conclusion of the Investigating Officer, instant petition is rendered infructuous. The case has been registered on the report lodged by respondent No. 2, whose presence in view of the stated position for disposal of this petition is not required. 4. Respondent No. 2 may or may not be satisfied with the conclusion of the investigating agency, the remedies are available to him for lodging protest after the closure report is submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Respondent No. 2 may or may not be satisfied with the conclusion of the investigating agency, the remedies are available to him for lodging protest after the closure report is submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction. Disposal of this petition in the aforesaid background shall not be taken in any manner as an expression of opinion about the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer, neither the court where report is to be submitted shall treat disposal of this petition as an impediment in dealing with the matter in accordance with the available provisions of law. The status report as produced by the learned AG dated 28.01.2019 along with copies of annexure is taken on records. 5. Petition for the stated reasons, does not survive for any further consideration, accordingly is dismissed.