[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Hitesh V Shah vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2062 of 2025
Hitesh V Shah, aged about 55 years, son of Vasat Bhai Shah, represented
through its Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, 102, Armenian Street, P.O.
Geogre Town, P.S. B2 Esplanade, Chennai- 600 001, State- Tamil Nadu
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-
Corruption Branch, 2 Booty More, Morabadi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN- 834008 ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate
-----
06/03.12.2025 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party-CBI.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including
the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Special
Judge, CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC08(A)/2017-R dated 30.10.2017, whereby,
the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence
under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court
of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge, CBI,
Ranchi.
3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the information has been
received by the Officer-in-Charge i.e. Superintendent of Police/HOB C.B.I,
ACB Ranchi as stated therein that informant has received information through
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
reliable sources to the effect that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, while posted and
functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical Wing of MECON Ltd. entered into
criminal conspiracy with the proprietors of co-accused M/s. Zeal India
Chemical as well as proprietors of M/s Shiv Machine Tools and in furtherance
thereof accepted illegal gratification from the two firms amounting to around
Rs. 1,65,45,000/- through banking transactions. It was further alleged that
Sri Upendra Nath Mandal has received the alleged amount in various accounts
existing either in his own name or in the name of his relatives/friends. It was
also alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal evaluated the technical bids of the
above firms submitted by them in different tenders and was also working as
the Project Coordinator on behalf of MECON in the works awarded to the said
firms. It was then alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal was the competent
person to pass the designs/drawings submitted by the firms while executing
the works. It was next alleged that the M/s Zeal India Chemicals participated
in the tender floated by Durgapur Steel Plant vide no DSP/PROJ-
PUR/EXPN/MSM-07/308 dated 11.05.2013 and had submitted its bid on
26.06.2013. The technical bid was evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and
Tender Appraisal Report was finalized in August, 2013. The work was awarded
in favour of M/s Zeal India Chemicals which is still in progress. The alleged
money of Rs. 49,50,000/- has been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s
Zeal India Chemicals during the period 12.06.2013 to 15.06.2016 through
bank accounts in his own name and in the name of his relatives/friends. It
was next alleged that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the tender
floated by Bokaro Steel Plant vide no T&C (M) /B320/036C/SPG/314 dated
03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The technical bid was
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and was finalized in March 2015. The
work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools which is still in
progress. The alleged money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- has been paid to Sri
Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period
03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank account in the name of his
relatives/friends. The above discussed acts on part of Sri Upendra Nath
Mandal, M/s Zeal India Chemical, Opposite Arya Samaj Mandir, 3rd
Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi and M/s Shiv
Machine Tools, 102-Armenian Street, Chennai- 600 001 disclosed commission
of cognizable offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. On the above grounds,
the case was registered against Upendra Nath Mandal, the then Sr. Manager,
Metallurgical Wing, MECON Ltd. (Residing at House No. MIG-34,
Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Near Sai Mandir, Aghanpur,
Jagadipur, Dist.-Bastar); M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Opposite Arya Samaj
Mandir, 3rd Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road Upper Bazar,
Ranchi (represented through its Proprietor residing at Flat no. 2A and 2B
2nd floor, Aroma Palace, Behind Firayalal, Ranchi and M/s Shiv Machine Tools,
102-Armenian Street, Chennai-600001 (represented through its
proprietor residing at 205-Swapnalok Apartment, 60-EVK Sampat Road,
Vepery, Chennai -7) under the aforesaid section of law and is entrusted to
Shri A.K. Singh, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi for investigation and
on the basis of the said allegation the present FIR has been instituted
against the 1) Upendra Nath Mandal, the then Sr. Manager, Metallurgical
Wing MECON India Ltd. Ranchi 2) Proprietor of M/s Zeal India
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
Chemicals, Ranchi and 3) Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools Chennai which
is pending in the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XI-
cum-Special Judge CBI Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to
the FIR, the investigation was conducted and after completion of the
investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet under Section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the present FIR has been
submitted being Charge Sheet No.14/2020 on 27.11.2020 for the alleged
offence under Section 13(2) read with13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 as well as Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
against the petitioner. He submits that in the said charge-sheet the
petitioner was arrayed as accused no.3 being Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine
Tools, Chennai. He further submits that in the charge-sheet, it has been
stated that during the investigation it is revealed that Modernization and
Expansion Plan (M.E.P.) of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) was
initiated at Bokaro Steel Plant which was to be done by installing new facilities
and augmenting existing facilities. He submits that the MECON was
appointed as consultant. The work related to Cold Rolling Mill-III laboratory
of Bokaro was taken up for which tender specification was prepared by
MECON in June, 2014 and accused no.1 namely Sri Upendra Nath Mandal
was then posted as Senior Manager Metallurgical wing, MECON. He then
submits that the tender specification was approved by Bokaro Steel Plant
and the tender was floated by Bokaro Steel Plant on 03.09.2014 for which
3 bids were received including one from the petitioner. He next submits
that after submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance has been taken against
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. By way of
referring the contents of the charge-sheet, he submits that no offence is
made out against the petitioner and it is a case of unfair and partial
investigation by the CBI. He also refers the material which has been brought
on record by way of filing charge-sheet. By way of referring charge-sheet
particularly at internal page 12, he submits that the details of money
transaction in the name of this petitioner are not there. He further
submits that in the order taking cognizance, the material is not
disclosed against the petitioner. He also submits that the allegation is against
Mintu Naskar that he has not shown payment in the CST/VAT return. On
these grounds, he submits that since the investigation was unfair
and the documents prove innocence of the petitioner, the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly
be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied in the case of Nitya
Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also
known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC
93. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that if the materials are there
and that has been withheld by the investigating agency, the Court can
interfere, which has been held in the said case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another passed
in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025. By way of
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
referring paragraph 20 of the said judgment, he submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has issued certain steps for determining the veracity of a
prayer for quashing raised by the accused. He submits that in view of that,
the case of the petitioner is fully covered as the documents on the record
clearly suggest that the petitioner is innocent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied in the case of
Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another,
reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188. By way of referring paragraph 19 of the said
judgment, he submits that if the order taking cognizance is perverse or based
on no material, the Court can interfere. He submits that in light of the
materials on record, the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied in the case
of C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 314. He
refers paragraph 14 of the said judgment and submits that in that case the
High Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction, which has been set-aside
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next relied in the case of
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in
(2023) 18 SCC 251. He submits that in light of the said judgment, it is
proved that if the allegation is not there, the case of the petitioner may kindly
be allowed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied in the case
of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported
in (2022) 15 SCC 720.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied in the case of
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, reported
in (2009) 3 SCC 779 and submits that in paragraph 9 of the said
judgment, it has been held that when there is no such demand, the case will
not survive.
12. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that in absence of any material, the CBI has submitted
charge-sheet erroneously against the petitioner and in view of that, the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly be
quashed.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI vehemently opposed
the prayer and submits that what has been argued by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, that can be his defence and cannot be subject-
matter under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He
draws attention of the Court to internal page 8 of the charge-sheet and
submits that it has come that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the
tender floated by the Bokaro Steel Plant dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted
its bid on 15.10.2014. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine
Tools, which is still in progress. The money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- had been paid
to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period
03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank accounts in the name of his relatives/
friends. He further submits that in light of the outcome of further investigation,
it has been revealed that the petitioner who is the Proprietor of M/s Shiv
Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and got selected in Bokaro Steel
Plant Cold Rolling Project Tender No.T&C(M)B320/036C/SPG/314. He further
draws attention of the Court to internal page 11 of the charge-sheet and
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
submits that further materials are disclosed against the petitioner in the
charge-sheet. He then submits that it has been revealed that the Tender
Appraisal Report (TAR) was prepared by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Shiv
Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher
Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of
Chennai was declared technically and financially eligible. The Tender Appraisal
Report was sent to Bokaro Steel Plant in March, 2015 and after negotiation
Bokaro Steel Plant decided to award the work to M/s Shiv Machine Tools of
Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India
Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai. He
next submits that it has been further disclosed in the charge-sheet that
Rs.94.39 Lakhs was given by M/s Shiv Machine Tools to Sri Upendra Nath
Mandal either in the bank account of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal or in accounts
of other persons linked to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal. He also refers the details
of money transaction disclosed in the charge-sheet. He submits that Suresh
J Shah, who happened to be relative of the petitioner, several transactions
have been made through him which has been revealed in the charge-sheet.
He also submits that it has also come in the charge-sheet that Rs.70 Lakhs
was transferred from the account of M/s Shiv Machine Tools to the account
of Sri Mintu Naskar, Proprietor of Naskar Ceramic on 14.03.2016, 06.06.2016,
07.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. The amount received from M/s Shiv Machine
Tools was transferred by Sri Mintu Naskar in the account of Sri Upendra Nath
Mandal on the same day or on the next day. He submits that in the charge-
sheet, the investigation further revealed that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal while
posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical, MECON, Ranchi was
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
having official dealing with M/s Shiv Machine Tools and he was the overall in-
charge of the above discussed project being executed by M/s Shiv Machine
Tools. He next submits that in the charge-sheet, it has also been revealed
that the equipment/material supplied/installed at both the plants by the
accused firms were randomly inspected by the expert of Central Institute of
Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFER), Dhanbad and it was revealed that the
price paid against the purchase was on exorbitantly higher side. By way of
referring internal page 15 of the charge-sheet, he further submits that it has
been stated therein that Sri Upendra Nath Manal has obtained money
illegally from Sri Ajay Jalan, Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi
and Sri Hitesh V. Shah (petitioner), Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine
Tools, Chennai during the process of facilitating the award of contract to
accused nos. 2 and 3 and during the execution of work as he was the
overall in charge of the aforesaid project being Project Coordinator which is
nothing but the quid pro-quo. He submits that in light of the above, there
are sufficient materials against the petitioner to face the trial and in light of
the charge-sheet and looking into the materials, the learned Court has
rightly taken the cognizance. He next submits that so far as the case in hand
is concerned, the parameter of quashing the entire criminal proceeding is
not fulfilled.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI relied in the case of State of
Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. He refers
paragraph 25 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the
aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding
that the same is "necessary or desirable for the purpose of
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
Code". The first and foremost requirement of the section is
about the document being necessary or desirable. The
necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference
to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any
document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the
accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial
stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of
the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section
refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is
to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may
move the court for summoning and production of a document
as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the
section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement
to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till
the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document
being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and
desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such
a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party
who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227,
what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in
terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that
stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document
to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for
production of document can be issued by court and under a
written order an officer in charge of a police station can also
direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right
on the accused to produce document in his possession to
prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the
document is not produced process may be initiated to compel
production thereof."
Relying on the above judgment, he submits that if any document is in
favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is having remedy in light of Section 91
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 94 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI next relied in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and others, reported
in (2023) 18 SCC 399. By way of referring paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the
said judgment, he submits that at this stage the High Court is not required to
conduct mini trial to quash the entire criminal proceeding and that has been
held in that case.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also relied in the case of IVECO
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and
another, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 86. Relying on paragraph 71 of the said
judgment, he submits that the quality of evidence can be made in the trial
only and that has been held in the said case. He further submits that it has
also been held in the said judgment that the document, which has not been
looked into by the learned trial court, that cannot be considered either by the
High Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the CBI relied in the case of
Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others ,
reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1. He refers paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the said
judgment, which read as under:
"43. The report in terms of Section 173 of the Code is in the
nature of information to the Magistrate. Statutory requirement
is complied with if the requisite information is given. It
purports to be an opinion and therefore elaborate details are
not necessary. In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3
SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] it was held as follows : (SCC p.
716, para 76)
"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of
police officer under Section 173(2) CrPC. Section 173(2)
provides that on completion of the investigation the
police officer investigating into a cognizable offence
shall submit a report. The report must be in the form
prescribed by the State Government and stating therein
(a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the
information; (c) the names of the persons who appear
to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused
has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released
on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody
under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya
Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar [(1980) 3 SCC 152 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the statutory requirement of
the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with
if the various details prescribed therein are included in
the report. This report is an intimation to the Magistrate
that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the
investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient
evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
the necessary information is being sent to the court. In
fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an
opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is
concerned he has been able to procure sufficient
material for the trial of the accused by the court. The
report is complete if it is accompanied with all the
documents and statements of witnesses as required by
Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the
report of the investigating officer. It is also not
necessary that all the details of the offence must be
stated. The details of the offence are required to be
proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later
stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by
adducing acceptable evidence."
44. Mere non-description of the offences in detail is really
not material. At the stage of framing charge it can be urged
that no offence is made out.
45. With reference to the absence of allegations under
Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submitted whether the
charge-sheet has reference to any particular material referred
to in it and the relevance of it is to be considered at the time
when the charge is framed. It would not be desirable to
analyse minutely the materials as at that stage the court is
primarily concerned with the question as to whether charge is
to be framed in respect of any offence and whether prima facie
there appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency
of the materials. Therefore, the appellants' stand that the
charge-sheet does not refer to any particular material cannot
be accepted, more particularly, in view of the specific materials
referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent State."
18. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the
CBI submits that the law is well-settled that everything is not required to be
disclosed in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet is only opinion of the
investigating agency and the learned trial court can consider all aspects of
the matter either of the prosecution or of the defence. He further submits
that there are sufficient materials on the record and in view of that, the
learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. There is no illegality in the
order taking cognizance and in view of that, this petition may kindly be
dismissed.
19. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record including the charge-
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
sheet on which elaborate argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner
as well as CBI. Looking into the charge-sheet, it transpires that M/s Shiv
Machine Tools participated in the tender floated by the Bokaro Steel Plant
dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The work was
awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, which is still in progress. The
money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- had been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s
Shiv Machine Tools during the period 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank
accounts in the name of his relatives/ friends. In light of the outcome of
further investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner who is the
Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and got
selected in Bokaro Steel Plant Cold Rolling Project Tender
No.T&C(M)B320/036C/SPG/314. It has been revealed that the Tender
Appraisal Report (TAR) was prepared by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Shiv
Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher
Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of
Chennai was declared technically and financially eligible. The Tender Appraisal
Report was sent to Bokaro Steel Plant in March, 2015 and after negotiation
Bokaro Steel Plant decided to award the work to M/s Shiv Machine Tools of
Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India
Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai. It has
been further disclosed in the charge-sheet that Rs.94.39 Lakhs was given by
M/s Shiv Machine Tools to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal either in the bank account
of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal or in accounts of other persons linked to Sri
Upendra Nath Mandal. The details of money transaction are also disclosed in
the charge-sheet. Several transactions have been made through Sri Suresh J
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
Shah, who happened to be relative of the petitioner, which has been revealed
in the charge-sheet. It has also come in the charge-sheet that Rs.70 Lakhs
was transferred from the account of M/s Shiv Machine Tools to the account
of Sri Mintu Naskar, Proprietor of Naskar Ceramic on 14.03.2016, 06.06.2016,
07.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. The amount received from M/s Shiv Machine
Tools was transferred by Sri Mintu Naskar in the account of Sri Upendra Nath
Mandal on the same day or on the next day. In the charge-sheet, it has also
been revealed that the investigation further revealed that Sri Upendra Nath
Mandal while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical,
MECON, Ranchi was having official dealing with M/s Shiv Machine Tools and
he was the overall in-charge of the above discussed project being executed
by M/s Shiv Machine Tools. In the charge-sheet, it has also been revealed
that the equipment/material supplied/installed at both the plants by the
accused firms were randomly inspected by the expert of Central Institute of
Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFER), Dhanbad and it was revealed that the
price paid against the purchase was on exorbitantly higher side. It has been
stated at internal page 15 of the charge-sheet that Sri Upendra Nath Manal
has obtained money illegally from Sri Ajay Jalan, Proprietor of M/s Zeal India
Chemicals, Ranchi and Sri Hitesh V. Shah (petitioner), Proprietor of M/s Shiv
Machine Tools, Chennai during the process of facilitating the award of contract
to accused nos. 2 and 3 and during the execution of work as he was the
overall in charge of the aforesaid project being Project Coordinator which is
nothing but the quid pro-quo.
20. The Court has perused the order taking cognizance and finds that the
learned Court has given cogent reason while taking cognizance against the
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
accused persons including the petitioner. At the stage of issuance of process,
the learned Court is mainly concerned with the allegation made in the
complaint or evidence led in support of the same and the learned Court is
only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against
the accused or not At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based
upon a police report and for issuance of summons, detailed enquiry regarding
the merits and demerits of the case is not required. In cases instituted on a
police report, the learned Court is only required to pass an order issuing
summons to the accused and such an order is based upon subject to
satisfaction of the learned Court considering the police report and other
documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The learned Court is not required to record
any reason. However, in the case in hand the learned Court while taking
cognizance, has dealt with the allegation and thereafter has been pleased to
take cognizance. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.
21. In light of the above discussions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and others, IVECO
Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and
another and Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and
others (supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel appearing for the CBI, it is well-settled that at the time of taking
cognizance, the learned Court is required to only satisfy and looked into the
material and thereafter to pass the order. The High Court is not required to
conduct a mini trial at the time of deciding the petition under Section 528 of
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If the parameters of quashing
the proceeding in light of the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and
others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are made out, then only
quashing can be made.
22. The judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each
case. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another v.
Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and
another (supra), it has been held that the accused cannot ordinarily invoke
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, so far as the
document is concerned, that can be subject-matter at the time of trial and in
light of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to
Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is
having remedy. Thus, that judgment is not helping the petitioner.
23. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh & another (supra) as relied by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the steps have been disclosed in what circumstances the
quashing can be made and if the assertion contained in the charge-sheet
labelled against the accused is ruled out then only the proceeding can be
quashed. What has been discussed herein above, there are direct materials
against the petitioner and in view of that, the guidelines made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is not helping the
petitioner and, as such, that judgment is also not in favour of the petitioner.
24. In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Delhi and another (supra) as relied by the learned counsel appearing for
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
the petitioner, it has been held in that case if the order is perverse the Court
can quash the proceeding. Looking into the materials on record and the order
taking cognizance, the Court finds that there is no perversity in the said order
and, as such, that judgment is not rescuing the petitioner.
25. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the case of C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (supra) was
the case after the trial and entire materials were before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court weighing the evidence, has passed the
said order. In light of that, the said judgment is also not in favour of the
petitioner. Identical is the situation in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State
(Government of NCT of Delh) (supra) relied by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as that case was also decided after the trial.
26. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (supra) relied by the learned counsel appearing the petitioner, the
subject-matter was the nature of order and it was decided on jurisdictional
error and, as such, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner.
27. In the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of
Kerala (supra), relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
that judgment was also decided after the trial.
28. Thus, the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in the facts and materials on record, are not helping the
petitioner.
29. In a case where the investigation is completed, the Court is not
required to appreciate the evidence for quashing the criminal proceeding and
to appreciate the evidence if there that is function of criminal Court i.e. the
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
Special Judge as he is seized with the matter. A reference may be made to
the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar and another v. P.P.
Sharma, IAS and another, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222.
Paragraphs 16, 20, 31 and 33 of the said judgment read as under:
"16. It is thus obvious that 'the annexures' were neither
part of the police reports nor were relied upon by the
Investigating Officer. These documents were produced by the
respondents before the High Court along with the writ
petitions. By treating 'the annexures' and affidavits as
evidence and by converting itself into a trial court the High
Court pronounced the respondents to be innocent and
quashed the proceedings. The least we can say is that this
was not at all a case where High Court should have interfered
in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This Court has
repeatedly held that the appreciation of evidence is the
function of the criminal courts. The High Court, under the
circumstances, could not have assumed jurisdiction and put
an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under
the law. Since the High Court strongly relied upon "the
annexures" in support of its findings, we may briefly examine
these documents.
20. We do not wish to express any opinion on the rival
contentions of the parties based on their respective
appreciation of material on the record. We have quoted "the
annexures", the inferences drawn by the High Court and the
factual assessment of Mr Sibal, only to show that the High
Court fell into grave error in appreciating the documents
produced by the respondents along with the writ petitions and
further delving into disputed questions of facts in its
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
31. Finally, we are at a loss to understand as to why and
on what reasoning the High Court assumed extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
at a stage when the Special Judge was seized of the matter.
He had heard the arguments on the question of cognisance
and had reserved the orders. The High Court did not even
permit the Special Judge to pronounce the orders.
33. The above order was brought to the notice of the Patna
High Court but the High Court refused to be persuaded to
adopt the same course. We are of the considered view that at
a stage when the police report under Section 173 CrPC has
been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the
investigation and the material collected by the Investigating
Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court
would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing
proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this
ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed
by the learned counsel for the parties we thought it proper to
( 2025:JHHC:36269 )
deal with all the aspects of the case."
30. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and further
considering the parameters of quashing, no case of interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
31. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 3rd December, 2025
Ajay/ A.F.R.
Uploaded on
4th December, 2025
