Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging no involvement in record manipulation. Court held prima facie case exists based on FIR allegations and refused to conduct roving enquiry, dismissing the application.
Application for quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1255 of 2015
Amar Kumar Bauri
... ... ... Petitioner Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Kamaleshwar Narayan
... ... ... Opp. Parties
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.
5/13.07.2016
Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with I.E.L. P.S. Case No. 18/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 923/2015 registered for the offence under Sections 406/420/467/466/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was Additional Gram Rojgar Sewak who was directed to look after the works in the office and although there was no allegation that of defalcation or manipulating the register, the petitioner has still been made an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter written by the petitioner to the Block Development Officer, Gomia. It has been submitted that petitioner did not have any concern with the work which was carried on for the financial year 2010-11 and therefore the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the first information report itself speaks about the involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons that they were using whitener for manipulating the register. The letter which was referred by the petitioner is his defence which cannot be considered at this stage.
The first information report itself reveals specific allegation against the petitioner of being involved with other persons in manipulation of records. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be a matter of defence which will be decided by the trial court. This court in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
cannot conduct a roving enquiry and look into such evidence at this stage.
In such circumstances, I find prima-facie case made against the petitioner. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Binit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420/467/466/120(B) IPC should be quashed at the trial stage.
Whether prima facie case exists against the petitioner for involvement in manipulating records.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Kumar Bauri
The State of Jharkhand
Kamaleshwar Narayan
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
