Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Chandra Jha vs The Union Of India Through The C.B.I. ... ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:20748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.426 of 2023
-----
Dinesh Chandra Jha, aged about 67 years, son of Late
Surya Narain Jha, resident of Flat No.6A, Diamond City,
South Tower IV, 58, M.G. Road, P.O. & P.S. Paschim
Putiari, District Kolkata-700041 (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the C.B.I. ... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P.
: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 11.07.2025 Pronounced on 25.07.2025
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has
been under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including
the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 passed in
R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D whereby and whereunder,
prima facie case has been found to be made out under
Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Factual Matrix
2. The accused persons (public servants) in conspiracy
with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company
Limited, Beijing (China) and its Indian agent cheated M/s
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad during the period
2009 to 2016 by issuing supply order for two Road Header
2025:JHHC:20748
Machines for use in coal mining activities and making
payment to the said company as well as accepting the said
Machines which were not as per the technical specification,
due to which, both the machines broke down / remained
unutilized, resulting wrongful loss of Rs. 11.60 crores
(approx.) to BCCL.
Against the specification of Road Header Machines
of 1.6 M, the said company supplied machines with overall
height much more than specified in the NIT and supply
order.
Both the machines were not accepted by the BCCL,
W.J. Area, Moonidih, Dhanbad as they were not as per
specification, but still the accused persons accepted the
machines and made 80% payment and they tried to justify
the said illegal procurement to reuse the rejected machines
instead of insisting the said firm to replace or modify the
machines at their cost. It was known to the accused
persons that the height of machines was much higher than
the available seam of coal and as such there was no way
the machines could have been put to any productive use.
Accused persons failed to recommend any action
against the said company or its Indian agent, who had
supplied the machines, which were not as per the supply
order and released 80% payment.
2025:JHHC:20748
The Road Header Machines broke down since
November, 2015 and another was with effect from
03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial.
Thus, the accused-public servants of BCCL, firm and
others cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss to the
tune of Rs. 11.60 crores (approx) and corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves.
The Director, Central Vigilance Commission, New
Delhi vide order No. 015/COL/051-337020 dated
17.02.2017 in exercises of powers conferred under Section
8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the C.V.C. Act, 2003 had directed the
CBI to conduct an investigation into the manner of
acquisition of equipment, whose specifications were
altogether different from the tendered one, non-returning of
such inappropriate machinery, making of payment even
though the machinery delivered was not the one ordered for
and other connected issues including the role of the
officers, who dealt with the issue, foreign supplier, their
Indian agent and others involved.
Accordingly, a first information report being R.C.
Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D was registered on 22.11.2017 was
instituted against the petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Accordingly, the investigation in the said case has
been completed and charge-sheet dated 22.09.2021 has
been submitted against the accused persons including the
2025:JHHC:20748
present petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and
Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Cognizance of the said offence has been taken by
the court concerned vide order dated 02.12.2021.
4. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred
hereinabove that the petitioner along with other co-accused
in criminal conspiracy with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China and their
Indian agent cheated the Bharat Coking Coal Limited
(BCCL), Dhanbad during the period 2009 to 2016 by
issuing supply order for 02 Road Header Machines for use
in coal mining works, making payment to the said company
and accepting the said machines which are not fulfilling the
required technical specification due to which both
machines broke down/remained unutilized resulting into
wrongful loss of Rs.11.6 Crores approx to the BCCL.
Against the requirement of Road Header Machines of 1.6M,
the said company supplied machines with overall height
much more than specified in N.I.T. and supply order.
5. The inspection reports were submitted by the said
company, due to which, both machines were not accepted
by W.J. Area, Moonidih, BCCL, Dhanbad, but still the
accused officials accepted the machines and made 80% of
the payment and they tried to justify the said illegal
procurement to reuse the rejected machines instead of
2025:JHHC:20748
insisting the said firm to replace or modify the machines at
their cost. It was known to the accused officials that the
height of machines was much higher than the available
seam of coal and as such there was no way the machines
could have been put to any productive use.
6. It has also been alleged that they failed to recommend
any action against the said company or its Indian agent
who had supplied the machines which was not as per
supply order and taken 80% payment. It has also been
alleged that one of the Road Header Machine broke down
since November, 2015 and another was stopped w.e.f.
03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial.
Thus, the petitioner and other co-accused, public servants
of BCCL have cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss
to the tune of Rs.11.6 Crores approx and corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves.
Submission made on behalf of the petitioner
7. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that charge-sheet was submitted on
22.09.2021 by the CBI.
8. He has submitted that the allegation relates to a
commercial matter and transaction arising out of contract,
which suggests that this is a matter of civil nature,
whereas, the criminal case has unnecessarily been
registered against the petitioner.
2025:JHHC:20748
9. He has further submitted that till initiation of the
tender process i.e. floating of global tender and conclusion
of tender process i.e. issuance of purchase order/supply
order dated 24.07.2009 opening of LC account, the
petitioner herein was not at all concerned with the entire
process.
10. It has been submitted that the petitioner has
been implicated in the present case only on the ground that
the petitioner being the Director Technical (Operation) had
extended the delivery period for a period of eleven days
provisionally, reserving right to impose liquidated damages.
Prior to extension of delivery period by the petitioner, the
delivery period was already extended twice i.e. first
extension was granted on 04.09.2010 and second was
granted on 07.02.2011. A proper note was presented before
the petitioner, who at the relevant pointed of time was the
in-charge of the Director Technical (Operation) and in his
capacity, he had extended delivery period only by eleven
days with imposition of liquidated damages.
11. He has further submitted that the records of
the case would reveal that the matter pertaining to
purchase of Road Header Machines had begun in 2008 and
concluded in 2009. In as much as NIT for supply of Road
Header Machines was issued on 12th February, 2008, pre-
bid meeting, opening of technical bid, financial bid and
2025:JHHC:20748
issuance of supply order was completed on 24.07.2009,
whereas the petitioner had joined as Director Technical
(Operations).
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner was nowhere involved in the
transactions of procurement process of Road Header
Machines from the date of issuance of NIT till issuance of
supply order.
13. It has been submitted that the aforesaid pre bid
meeting and issuance of addendum to the main NIT were
done in consonance with the purchase manual of Coal
India Limited which provides the duty and responsibility of
the tender committee, which spells that the Committee will
give recommendation regarding acceptance or otherwise
any deviation quoted by the bidders. Therefore, the
Committee is within its competence to take a decision and
may deviate taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the coal mines for which the procurement
was sought for.
14. He has further submitted that so far as the second
allegation regarding extension of letter of credit without
obtaining revised drawing which relates to the petitioner is
concerned, it is submitted that there is no concept of
extension of letter of credit in any international trade of
2025:JHHC:20748
commerce and the moment delivery time is extended, the
period of letter of credit will also automatically be extended.
15. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as the
allegation with respect to clear the draft board agenda note
for acceptance of unsuitable road header machine is
concerned, after the dispatch and assembling for the first
time, it came to the knowledge of the BCCL on 20.12.2011
on joint inspection in presence of the members of the BCCL
and M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd.
(supplier) that height of the machine is not in conformity
with the NIT and purchase order. On the very next day, the
same was duly informed to the concerned authorities who
were actively involved in the purchase of two road header
machines on 21.12.2011.
16. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner has already retired from the service of BCCL.
17. Based upon the aforesaid ground, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-
D including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021
be quashed and set aside.
Submission made on behalf of the respondent-CBI
18. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for
the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer and has
submitted that investigation revealed that unsuitable Road
2025:JHHC:20748
Header Machines were procured by the accused officials of
BCCL from M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company
Ltd, China and the machines could not clear field trial to
get approval from DGMS, Dhanbad. As a result, both
machines remained unutilized resulting into huge wrongful
loss to BCCL and corresponding gain to M/s Jiamusi Coal
Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China and M/s Minop
Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata. Both the Road
Header machines became idle or of no use to BCCL
resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.11,15,62,132/- to BCCL
with corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Jiamusi Coal
Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China and M/s Minop
Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata due to conspiracy,
criminal misconduct and abuse of official position by the
accused officials of BCCL.
19. He has further submitted that the petitioner, in the
capacity of Director (Technical) Operation, BCCL
Headquarter, Dhanbad had extended delivery period with
imposition of liquidated damages which was sent to him for
his approval without safeguarding the interest of BCCL.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has
submitted that in view of the aforesaid, no interference is
required and the instant case may be dismissed.
Analysis
2025:JHHC:20748
21. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the materials available on record.
22. Before adverting into facts of the instant case it will
be profitable to discuss herein the ambit and scope of
inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
23. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are the
exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High
Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to
prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of
process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not
confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the
alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could
only be secured in accordance with law, including
procedural law and not otherwise. Reference in this regard
may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191.
24. It is settled proposition of law that to invoke its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High
Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by
the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that
2025:JHHC:20748
his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would
rule out and displace the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused; and the material
produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Reference in this
regard may be taken by the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and
Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] which
reads as under:
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if
it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution
against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at
the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of
charges. These are all stages before the commencement of
the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The power vested in the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages
referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching
consequences inasmuch as it would negate the
prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution,
care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has
to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the
accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that
his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would
rule out and displace the assertions contained in the
2025:JHHC:20748
charges levelled against the accused; and the material
produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be
sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material
relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted,
or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being
material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material
relied upon by the accused should be such as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a
situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would
persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC
to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would
prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the
ends of justice."
25. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005)
1 SCC 568] the powers of the High Court under Section
482, Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India
were highlighted and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to
face the trial despite being in a position to produce
material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality,
the width of the powers of the High Court under Section
482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is
unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High
Court can make such orders as may be necessary to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid
down in Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426]."
26. In Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
[(2008) 14 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
2025:JHHC:20748
that the width of the powers of the High Court under
Section 482, Cr. P.C. and under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are unlimited, that the High Court
could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. In a concurring order passed in the very
same case, it was observed in addition that in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the High Court is
free to consider even material that may be produced on
behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether charge
as framed could be maintained.
27. In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home [(2019) 11 SCC 706], referring to
the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C., the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as follows:
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent
the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice
only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law
that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is
pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513.
Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para
20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237].
Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings
initiated against a person can be interfered with at the
stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations
have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it
could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR
2025:JHHC:20748
stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a
charge-sheet after investigation. The power is
undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of
power of any court."
28. Thus, it is settled position in the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High
Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters,
is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In
a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify
the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice.
29. As can be gathered from the above, Section 482 Cr.
P.C. recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court to
quash initiation of prosecution against the accused to pass
such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect
to any order under the Cr. P.C. or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to
2025:JHHC:20748
quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the
charges levelled against the accused and based on the
material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the
assertions contained in the charges levelled by the
prosecution deserve to be overruled.
30. While exercising the powers vested in the High
Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., whether at the stage of
issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the
stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are
prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be
applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the
material produced by the accused would lead to a
conclusion that their defence is based on sound,
reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by
the accused should also be such that would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled
against them as false.
31. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition
of law this Court is now adverting to the fact of the case in
order to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner that he has
no role in the alleged commission of crime.
32. This Court has gone through the order taking
cognizance as well as various paragraph of the counter
affidavit, wherefrom it is evident that in the present case
2025:JHHC:20748
investigation disclosed materials which shows that undue
concessions and favours were made to benefit of the
supplier Company which would be evident from the
material as surfaced during investigation.
33. In the chargesheet, it has been revealed that that 09
Road Header Machines of different makers were procured
from M/s Voiest Alpine, Austria, M/s Dosco Overseas
Engineering Ltd, UK, M/s DBT GB Ltd., UK and M/s Joy
Mining Machinery Ltd., UK by Coal India Limited (CIL) for
BCCL during March 1980 to November 1986 to be used in
Moonidih Mines of BCCL. All these Road Header Machines
were of overall height in range of 1.2 M to 1.4 M. These
Machines were having requisite DGMS approval and all the
machines were/are giving satisfactory services even though
they had surpassed their economic life span of 09 years.
34. It has also been further disclosed in the chargesheet
that in the supply order that machines should be
dispatched from China only after approval of the machine
drawing by the BCCL. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy
to show undue favour to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Ltd, China and M/s Minop Innovative
Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata, the name of the BCCL
officials have been disclosed, who enclosed the unapproved
and disputed machine drawing submitted by M/s Jiamusi
2025:JHHC:20748
Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China along with its
offer to BCCL.
35. It has further been revealed in the chargesheet that
as per the NIT, the requirement is 1.6 Meter only and M/s
Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China also
offered machine with maximum overall height of 1.65
Meter, but they had enclosed drawing of overall height of
2.5 meter. Besides that the NIT had the provision that in
case any inspected or tested machine fail to conform to the
specifications, the purchaser (BCCL) may reject them and
the supplier shall either replace the rejected machine and
make alternative arrangement to meet specification
requirements 'free of cost' to the purchaser.
36. From perusal of the chargesheet it is evident that in
the present case investigation disclosed materials which
shows that undue concessions and favours were made to
benefit the supplier Company. Some of the materials that
have been arraigned against the officers of company in
extending favour to the Company are as under: a. M/s
Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to
participate in the pre bid meeting although it had not
disclosed the name of the manufacturing company it was
representing. After the pre bid meeting two vital NIT clauses
were modified causing undue benefit to the accused
company M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd
2025:JHHC:20748
Kolkata. Last date of opening tender was extended up to
26.05.2008 and subsequently it was further extended up to
28.07.08. M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd.
Kolkata signed a MOU with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining
Machinery Company Ltd. on 25.7.2008 just before expiry of
last date of tender submission to form a consortium. The
clause of global tender and NIT did not allow the
consortium to participate in the bid, despite this M/s
Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to
participate in the tender process.
37. The offer and technical specifications given by the
Chinese firms were not fulfilling NIT Parameters which was
liable to be rejected but the same was accepted.
38. It has also come that the offered machine was
violating six major criteria given in the NIT. The biggest
deviation was the overall height of the machine which was
2.5 M against the maximum prescribed height of 1.6 M in
the NIT. Despite the defects in the tender bid the price bid
was opened for M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery
Company Ltd.
39. It was mentioned in the supply order that machines
would be dispatched from China only after approval of the
machine drawing by BCCL. In furtherance of criminal
conspiracy to show undue favour to M/s Jiamusi Coal
Mining Machinery Company Ltd., accused officers of the
2025:JHHC:20748
BCCL enclosed the unapproved and disputed machine
drawing submitted by M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery
Company Ltd, along with its offer to BCCL, in the supply
order. As per this machine drawing, overall height of
machine was 2.5 m. The requirement as per NIT was 1.6 m
(+/- 5% variation) only. The NIT had the provision that in
case any inspected or tested machine fail to conform to the
specifications, the purchaser may reject them and the
supplier shall either replace the rejected machine and make
alternative arrangement to meet specification requirements
"free of cost" to the purchaser.
40. The clause in the NIT, for inspection/tests to be
conducted on the premises of the supplier at point of
delivery and/or at the goods of final destination was also
dropped from the supply order.
41. No action was recommended against the supplier
Company or its Indian agent who had supplied the
machines which were not as per the supply order. The
required DGMS approvals were not obtained before their
operation in the mines.
42. The payment clause of NIT stipulated that for
imported supply, 80% value of each equipment and
accessory would be paid only against letter of Credit and
the equipment should be accompanied with relevant
dispatch documents including inspection certificate of
2025:JHHC:20748
CIL/BCCL. But in the supply order the said condition was
not incorporated.
43. The accused companies had no safety approvals
from the Director General Mines Safety (DGMS), regarding
this machine.
44. Petitioner is facing prosecution, inter alia, for the
offence of criminal conspiracy with other officers to favour
the supplier, Company. In the teeth of the above materials,
it cannot be said that the charges are groundless.
45. There are specific allegations against this petitioner
has come in the Final Form which has been quoted herein
under:
"Shri D.C. Jha, the then Director (Technical) Operation,
BCCL HQ, Dhanbad (since retired):- He, in abuse of his
official position, extended the delivery time of supply
without ensuring compliance of terms of supply order by
not insisting on obtainment of revised machine drawings
for BCCL approval. He dishonestly agreed to extend the
LC without obtaining the revised machine drawings.
Apart from this, he agreed for discharging LC towards
80% payment to the accused company and its Indian
Agent. He had 7 also cleared the draft Board Agenda Note
for acceptance of unsuitable supplied Road Header
Machines and got approved from BCCL, Board of
Directors. He pressurised officials of Moonidih Mines for
accepting/commissioning of unsuitable Road Header
Machines supplied by the supplier firm and its. Indian
Agent".
46. Considering the above discussed materials, the plea
of the petitioner that there were no sufficient grounds
against him, cannot be countenanced. The definition of
2025:JHHC:20748
Section 13(2)(d) of the P.C Act is wide enough to bring
within its sweep, the acts of the public servant by corrupt
or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing
his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
47. It requires to refer herein that conspiracy is not an
open affair, therefore, the prosecution has to rely upon
evidence pertaining to the acts of various parties to prove
such an agreement of conspiracy on the basis of
circumstantial evidence which can be inferred by necessary
implication.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions
has observed that for an offence punishable under Section
120B of the IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove
that the propagators expressly agree to do or carried to be
done an illegal act and such agreement may be proved by
necessary implication to be determined from the
circumstantial evidence brought on record.
49. Further, Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete
even though there is no agreement as to the means by
which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful
agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of
conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a
2025:JHHC:20748
conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be
inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially
declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators.
Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
T.N. through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT
Petitioner v. Nalini and others; (1999) 5 SCC 253.
50. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) a three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court held that the offence of conspiracy can be
established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence and the section will come into play only when the
Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe
that two or more persons have conspired to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should
be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to that
conspiracy.
51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617 has held as
follows:--
"Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is
punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, for the
purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read
with the aforementioned provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act was required to establish the offence by
applying the same legal principles which are otherwise
2025:JHHC:20748
applicable for the purpose of bringing a criminal
misconduct on the part of an accused."
52. Thus, from the aforesaid settled proposition of law
that offence of conspiracy can be established either by
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence but the
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code will come into play
only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable
ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired
to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
53. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal
proposition it is evident that the angle of conspiracy on
behalf of the petitioner may well be appreciated before trial
court only.
54. It is evident from record that the chargesheet was
submitted and the learned court has been pleased to take
cognizance by order dated 02.12.2021. It appears that the
learned court has applied its mind and thereafter has taken
cognizance by passing a well-reasoned order. This is not
the case that before the learned court the entire materials
are not there, as the materials are there before the learned
court in the form of chargesheet and looking into that the
learned court has passed the order. At the time of issuing
process, the learned Magistrate is mainly concerned with
the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same and the learned Magistrate is only to
2025:JHHC:20748
be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused. When issuing summons, the learned
Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his
satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused.
55. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to
examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether
the materials collected is adequate for supporting the
conviction. The court is not required to evaluate the
evidence and its merits. The standard to be adopted for
summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not
the same at the time of framing the charge.
56. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence
based upon a police report and for issuance of summons
under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the
merits and demerits of the case is not required. In cases
instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only
required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused.
Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based
upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Magistrate
considering the police report and other documents and
satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused and the learned Magistrate
is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge
sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction
2025:JHHC:20748
or when the chargesheet is rejected or not taken on file,
then the learned Magistrate is required to record his
reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking
on file. The cognizance of offence was taken by taking into
consideration the chargesheet filed by the police and
looking into the case diary.
57. It also appears that necessary sanction order has
been obtained against the present petitioner along with the
other accused persons.
58. There are parameters of quashing the entire
criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance
and at the time of quashing the entire criminal proceeding,
the High Court is required to look into the matter with
circumspection and if cogent reasons are there, then only
the quashing of the cognizance order is made out. There is
no doubt, if a false case is there, the burden on the court is
higher, and the court is required to read the things in
between the lines.
59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Odisha VS Pratima Mohanty, 2022 0 AIR(SC) 41 by
taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case
of State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And
Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 has held that normally in exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal
2025:JHHC:20748
proceedings/FIR should not be quashed, for ready
reference, the relevant paragraph is being referred herein:-
"At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the
impugned judgment and order the High Court in
exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has quashed the criminal proceedings for the
offences under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the act and Section 420 read with
Section 120B IPC. From the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, it appears
that the High Court has entered into the merits of
the allegations and has conducted the mini-trial by
weighing the evidence in detail which, as such, as
observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this
Court in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. vs
Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be
exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of
any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. In the said decision this Court had carved
out the exceptions to the general rule that normally
in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
the criminal proceedings/FIR should not be
quashed."
60. In view of the facts discussed hereinabove as also
taking into consideration the ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court, this Court is of the view that there are
materials against the petitioner, which has been
appreciated by the learned court and thereafter cognizance
has been taken.
2025:JHHC:20748
61. As such, no case of interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
A.F.R.
Birendra/
