Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2615 of 2022
1. Gopal Verma, aged about 62 years, son of Sri Kishan Chand Verma,
resident of B-9/1657, Vasant Kunj, P.O. & P.S. Vasant Kunj, District-
New Delhi-110070, Delhi
2. Ajit Pratap @ Ajit Prasad, aged about 44 years, son of Shri Banarsi
Das, resident of V-250, Gandhi Colony NIT Faridabad, P.O. & P.S.-
Faridabad, Dist.-Faridabad, Haryana-121001
3. Upendra Kumar Mandal, aged about 34 years, son of Shiv Shankar
Mandal, resident of Panchwati Nagar, Bhuli, A-Block, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad
4. Pawan Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Ratan Prasad
Singh, resident of Village-Kurapat, P.O.-Bajalpur, P.S.-Sabour, Dist.-
Bhagalpur, Bihar
5. Yashwardhan Rana @ Rana Yashwardhan, aged about 39 years, son
of Sri Beer Bhandra Prasad Singh, resident of Shri Krishna Nagar,
P.O. & P.S.-Krishnapuri, Dist.-Patna (Bihar)
.... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 04.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur in connection with G.R. Case No. 761 of
2011 arising out of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 299 of 2011 whereby
and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur has
taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,
420, 353 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and charges have also been
framed for the said offences but no witness has been examined, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being
associated with M/s. E. Meditek (TPA) Service Limited were
entrusted with the work of preparing smart cards to be distributed to
the beneficiaries inter alia for the health insurance up to the extent of
Rs.30,000/- per person through such cards. The allegation against
the petitioners is that the though the petitioners were to prepare and
distribute 88,381 such smart cards but they took photographs of
48,499 persons but prepared smart cards of only 36,766 persons but
did not distribute all of them and dishonestly retained smart cards
with them in which recharge of Rs.30,000/- of the government
money was made fraudulently.
4. After completion of investigation, police found that the allegation
against the petitioners including the petitioner no.4 and 5 who were
not named in the FIR having committed the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 353, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and
submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and basing upon the
same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur has taken
cognizance of the said offences.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 609 that in paragraph no. 44 therein, it has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when the company is the
offender, vicarious liability of the directors cannot be imputed
automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect.
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by
relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economics
Zone Limited & Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 430 wherein in
paragraph no. 9, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that merely because the accused persons of that case are
chairman, managing director, executive director, deputy general
manager, planner & executor automatically they cannot be held
vicariously liable unless there are specific allegation and averments
against them with respect to their individual role.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the allegation against the petitioners are false and though the
contract was given to the E. Meditek company by Oriental Insurance
Company but neither the Oriental Insurance Company nor E.
Meditek company have been made accused in this case. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the even if
the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to
be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur has taken cognizance
is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the
prayer as made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition and submits that the facts of this case are entirely different
from the fact of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (supra) in the sense that in this case the petitioners
have not been found having committed the offence in respect of
which police has submitted charge sheet against them merely
because they are associated with E. Meditek (TPA) Services Limited
rather during the investigation of the case, police found serious
allegation against them of having committed embezzlement of
government money relating to recharge of smart cards of Rs.30,000/-
per cards of government money even though the said cards is not
distributed to the beneficiaries and were retained by the petitioners
in furtherance of their common intention, illegally and they have
also committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly
misappropriating huge amount of government money by ensuring
fraudulent recharge of the cards which instead of being distributed
by them to the beneficiaries were dishonestly retained by them. It is
next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the facts of this case are
different from the facts of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore
Special Economics Zone Limited & Ors. (supra) because that was a
complaint case and herein in this case as categorically mentioned by
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur in the paragraphs of
the case diary in which the statement of the witnesses recorded by
the I.O. of the case appears and the witnesses have named the
petitioners to be the persons who committed the offences which
were found to be true against them by the I.O. of the case. It is lastly
submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that besides illegally recharging
Rs.30,000/- per card of the cards which were not distributed to the
beneficiaries, Rs.30/- were also collected by the accused persons
from each of the beneficiaries illegally and the petitioners also
embezzled public money which were provided to them for the
purpose of distribution of angan badi sevika. Therefore, it is submitted
that at this nascent stage quashing of the entire criminal proceeding
relating to serious offences of embezzlement of huge amount of
government money ought not to be allowed. Hence, it is submitted
that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, this Court is of the considered
view that unlike the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners as already referred to above in this case, the
company has not been made accused so far because the police
during the investigation of the case apparently did not find any
involvement of the company as such in commission of the offences
but there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners
themselves, in their individual capacity having committed the
offences alleged and the same was found to be true by the police and
the offences are serious offence of embezzlement of government
money by recharging smart cards to the extent of recharging
Rs.30,000/- per cards of several thousand cards which were illegally
retained by the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention
instead of distributing the same to the beneficiaries.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case; as unlike that
case, in this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur has
taken cognizance of the offences consequent upon the submission of
the charge sheet against the petitioners after the police collected
sufficient evidence against them, as mentioned in the different
paragraphs of the case dairy which was also being referred to in the
order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur; therefore
this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where
the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance
dated 04.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Pakur in connection with G.R. Case No. 761 of 2011 arising out of
Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 299 of 2011 be quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 28th October, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
