The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition seeking the quashing of proceedings for illegally transporting materials after liquidation and held that there are some parameters for quashing criminal proceedings and if the disputed questions of facts are involved, then it cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
The company of the petitioners, which was under liquidation and restrained from alienating its assets and properties was illegally transporting its articles for sale. The Official Liquidator appointed was not allowed to take possession of the company and the complaint was filed against the same. The petitioners then filed the present petition seeking quashing entire criminal proceedings against them.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the charge sheet was not yet submitted in the case filed against them. It was further argued that the company thought it proper to liquidate dues to local contractors by selling the unusable scrap materials of the company as it was facing a financial crisis and certain articles were being transported for sale given the same and tax was also paid for the same. the counsel relied on the judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that the court should interfere and quash the FIR itself as no case of lodging it was made out and the police had maliciously lodged the same.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the company was under liquidation and the Official Liquidator who was appointed was not allowed to take possession of the same and this was the reason as to why an action against the company was requested, which was taken subsequently. It was further argued that the court should not interfere in the matter as the company was restrained from making any change in its management without leave of court but it was involved in the illegal transportation of the articles.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that financial irregularities were involved in the petition and there are some parameters of quashing the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding. The court stated that if the disputed questions of facts are involved, then it cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition under Article 226.
The court further referred to the judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh which held that even the malicious ground is required to be demonstrated before the court. Further reference was made to the judgment in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to state that the present case was not within the given criteria held for quashing the case.
The court further stated that men rea can only be considered in the course of trial and the court is required to apply its judicial mind once the chargesheet is submitted for taking cognizance.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions and did not quash the proceedings against the petitioners,
Case Title: Ravindra Kumar Singh and anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 332 of 2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kerketta and Mr. Binit Chandra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
