Sushil Verma vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 3426 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.48 of 2021 Reserved on: 12.07.2021

.

                                                             Date of Decision: 03.08.2021





    Sushil Verma                                                               ...Petitioner





                                     Versus
    State of H.P.                                                            ...Respondent

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1NO

________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
        FIR No.    Dated           Police Station         Sections
        46         13.07.2020      Kunihar, District 409, 420 and 120B of IPC




                                   Solan, H.P.





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge

The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the FIR mentioned above, has come

up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the proceedings on grounds that the investigations and the allegations does not make out any case.

2. Facts necessary to decide the present petition are that the main allegations against Anil Kaul (A-1) pertain to the acts of commission, omission or negligence. The allegations against the present petitioner is that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred in his account and he did not inform the bank about such receipt and, in fact, he spent the same.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

REASONING:

3. The status report filed in this petition reveals that the main accused Anil Kaul (A-1), has transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner,

.

Sushil Verma (A-2) on May 22, 2017. On receipt of such amount, the petitioner

withdrew a sum of Rs.35,000/- for his own expenditure and also transferred an amount of Rs.1,20,017/- for payment of fee of his wife. He did not inquire from the

bank that from where and from which source the money was transferred in his account. On being arrayed as an accused, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail. This Court had granted him pre-arrest bail on 22.12.2020.

On 28.12.2020, petitioner approached the investigating officer and volunteered to deposit the entire amount, which was wrongly deposited in his account. Subsequently, he did deposit the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the police. A perusal of the status report and investigation reveals that there is no allegation of any

conspiracy between the main accused Anil Kaul (A-1) and the present petitioner,

Sushil Verma (A-2). The stand of Sushil Verma (A-2) is very clear that this money was deposited in his account and instead of verifying the reasons for such deposit, he paid fee of his wife and also spent some amount as his own expenditure. It appears

that Sushil Verma (A-2) thought that it was a bounty and he was not honest enough to inquire it from the bank, but, in fact, it is the bank, on whose fault the money went

into the account of the petitioner, for which, he cannot be held criminally liable. His subsequent conduct of repaying the entire amount shows his bonafide. In fact, if the

investigating officer had approached him earlier, then possibility of his depositing the entire amount earlier, cannot be ruled out. The investigation reveals that without

loss of time, the petitioner paid back the entire amount. In the given facts, there is neither intention nor mens rea and actus reus on the part of the petitioner to have conspired with Anil Kaul (A-1) to transfer money in his account, rather, his conduct of repaying the amount absolve him from the criminal liability in the facts peculiar to the case.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON JURISPRUDENCE OF QUASHING:

4. The law is almost settled by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the FIR and the investigation do not make out any case or the prosecution is inherently and patently illegal, and the matters that fulfill the criteria for quashing, the High Court resorting to S. 482 CrPC can quash such FIR and

consequent proceedings. In R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, a three-member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, "[6]. ...It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings

.

in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court

would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some

categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or

that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If

the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would

be justified in quashing the proceedings on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise

where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the

offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide

whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and

cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is

.

reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not

be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused

would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re:

Shripad G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR 54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), NripendraBhusan Roy v. GobinaBandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v. SivaramaSubramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 :

(AIR 1925 Mad 39)."

5. In MadhavraoJiwaji Rao Scindia v SambhajiraoChandrojiraoAngre, 1988 (1) SCC 692, a three judges' bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[7]. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be

quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take

into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to

continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is

bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

CONCLUSION:

6. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter.

7. An analysis of the entire allegations and the investigation does not contain legally admissible evidence and thus, does not make out any prima facie case against the petitioners.

8. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

.

9. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh,

2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court

challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet.

Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."

10. Given above, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the

proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed qua the petitioner Sushil Verma, and all the consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside qua Sushil Verma. His bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending

application(s), if any, stand closed.

11. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in

the aforementioned terms.

Copy dasti.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge

August 03, 2021 (R.Atal)