Sangitaben Sanjay Sanklecha vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Sangitaben Sanjay Sanklecha vs State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2025

                                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/SCR.A/1431/2025                                                ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025

                                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1431 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                           SANGITABEN SANJAY SANKLECHA & ORS.
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                       MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                               Date : 03/02/2025
                                                                ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed for the following prayers:

"A) Be pleased to admit this application; B) Be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside FIR being FIR No. 11191011240019, dated 25/01/2024 registered at D.C.B. Police Station of Ahmedabad City for the alleged offences punishable under 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by invoking powers under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and CC case 2469/25 and all Proceedings arsing out of it in the interest of justice C) Be pleased to pass interim relief and by way of interim relief grant stay of further proceedings of arising out of the said FIR being FIR No. 11191011240019, dated 25/01/2024 registered at D.C.B. Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Police Station of Ahmedabad City for the alleged offences punishable under 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and CC case 2469/25 before the Chief Additional Metro Court No.11 Ahmedabad, pending admission and final hearing of this petition.

D) Be pleased to pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The respondent No.2 has registered the FIR against the present accused persons and have alleged that, in the year 2019, the petitioners who are relative of the complainant (Petitioner No. 1 is the sister of Complainant's wife) visited the house of the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioners owned various companies in the name and style of (1) Federal Process Automation Pvt. Ltd. (2) Arihant Corporation (HUF) and (3) Federal Jumbo Packaging Pvt.

Ltd. and the petitioners are generating good profits from these companies and they wish to expand their business, however, requested the complainant to lend some amount and petitioners will give 17% in return to her daughter, Nikita for every three months and if, complainant wife, Kalpanaben lent the amount then petitioner will give 15% in return for every three months. Therefore, the complainant's wife and her daughter, Kalpanaben and Nikita transferred a total sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and in lieu of the aforesaid the petitioners Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined have only paid a sum of Rs. 52,75,707/- till 31/03/2021 and it is further alleged that, the petitioners, without the consent of the complainant as made the shareholder of Federal Process Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Federal Jumbo Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

and therefore, the complainant has approached the D.C.B. Police Station and registered the FIR being FIR No. 11191011240019, dated 25/01/2024 registered at D.C.B. Police Station of Ahmedabad City for the alleged offences punishable under 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present petitioners-accused.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR and charge-sheet filed by the concerned I.O. in connection with the impugned FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereof, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Kishan Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.2 - original complainant and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondent - State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot for the petitioners has submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, no ingredients of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been attracted towards the present petitioners as the petitioners have taken loan from Kalpanaben and Nikita Jain from 2019 Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined till 2020 and by the end of March, 2021, the petitioners have already paid amount of Rs.52,75,707/- to Kalpanaben and Nikita Jain and therefore, ingredients of Section 406 of the IPC would not come into play as there was no entrustment and dominion over the property of the complainant. He has further submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, no ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC has been attracted towards the present petitioners as the petitioners have taken loan from Kalpanaben and Nikita Jain from 2019 till 2020 and by the end of March, 2021, the amount is repaid as mentioned earlier and for constituting offence under Section 420 of the IPC, there has to be intention/ mens rea. He further submits that on bare reading of the FIR, no allegations are there which can fulfill the criteria of dishonest intention against the present petitioners and therefore, he has submitted that the continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 (8) Scale 43, more particularly, paras 36 to 39. He has also relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Viral Mukund Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 GLH 4 554, more particularly, paras 17 and 18. Therefore, he has submitted that the Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR, which is essentially of civil nature dispute, would cause great hardship to the petitioners and therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned FIR.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the original-

complainant has submitted that on bare reading of the FIR, the offences are made out against the present petitioners. He has further submitted that before the City Civil Court, the petitioners have approached by praying for anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated 20.02.2024. He has submitted that earlier also vide order dated 15.06.2023, the trial Court has rejected the application, which is filed as Criminal Misc. Application No.4159 of 2023. He has further submitted that now the charge sheet is filed in the present case and it clearly transpires from the FIR that the petitioners have deliberately and dishonestly cheated the complainant by making shareholder in the company named as Federal Process Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Federal Jumbo Packaging Pvt. Ltd. without the consent of the complainant.

Moreover, he submits that amount of Rs.1,23,17,556/- received by the present petitioners from the complainant, is not repaid though it is promised that it will be repaid with 17% and 15% interest respectfully. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the present proceedings Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined as prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners.

6. Learned APP, Ms. Shruti Pathak has strongly opposed the submissions made at the bar on behalf of the petitioners and has submitted that now the charge-sheet is filed and considering the material available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out under Section 406 or 420 of the IPC and therefore, she has submitted that the petitioners may face the trial before the concerned trial Court as there is sufficient material available on record along with charge-

sheet which constitute offence as alleged in the impugned FIR.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I have also considered the provisions of Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as under:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.--

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

Explanation 1.-- A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Explanation 2.-- A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Illustrations

(a)A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined effects according to the will, and appropriate them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(b)A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(c)A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company's paper. A dishonestly disobeys the direction and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(d)But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z's directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company's paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

(e)A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(f)A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.-- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

415. Cheating.--

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.-- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Illustrations

(a)A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

(b)A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(c)A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d)A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e)A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

(f)A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

(g)A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

(h)A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

(i)A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7.1 I have also considered the tenor of the FIR, whereby, it is stated that it was offered by the present petitioners to the complainant, that the complainant will get 17% and 15% interest and therefore, Rs.1,75,00,000/- out of that, initially Rs.52,75,707/- were paid and thereafter, the rest of the amount of Rs.1,63,08,282/- were not paid even in the year 2021 and thereafter, the name of the complainant, Nikita Jain and Kalpanaben were mentioned as shareholders in the Federal Process Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Federal Jumbo Packaging Pvt. Ltd. without their consent or knowledge.

Moreover, considering the fact that even the anticipatory bail which was asked by way of application filed by the concerned trial Court in the year 2023 and lastly in 2024, came to be rejected vide order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court. It also transpires from the papers available on the record that prima facie the petitioners are involved in the alleged offences.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined 7.2 Furthermore, it transpires that the complainant becomes shareholder without consent and a huge amount is not repaid after initially giving promise to pay 17% and 15% interest on such huge amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, out of that only Rs.52 lakh and odd amount is repaid and that too, as per the situation prevailed in the year 2021. There is also civil remedy available with the complainant, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ingredients of Section 406 and 420 of the IPC are also prima facie satisfied. It is to be noted that now the charge-sheet is also filed against the present petitioners. This Court while considering the application for quashing has to exercise its powers very sparingly, specially when, the Court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out or Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law.

7.3 Considering the facts of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that since the prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners and charge-sheet is also filed after investigation as well as considering the allegations made in the FIR and the papers of the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners reported in 2023 (8) Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Scale 43 and 2023 GLH 4 554, are not helpful to the facts of the present case. There is no quarrel about the ratios and principles laid down by those judgments, but facts of those cases are different from the facts of the present case, in the present case, prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC.

7.4 It is apt to refer to the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein, it is held in paragraph 80 as under:

"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted"

and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

7.5 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somjeet Mallick versus State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 527, more particularly Paras : 15, 17and 18 thereof, which read as under :

" 15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined be tested at this stage.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted in favour of the present petitioners as prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the proceedings are required to be continued pursuant to the charge-sheet. Therefore, the present petition is not required to be considered at this stage and the same is required to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SLOCK BAROT Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 06 23:03:07 IST 2025