Dismissed

M/S Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through Its Pro v. Union of India And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2020W.P.(Cr.)/303/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's plea to quash criminal proceedings alleging diversion of coal. The court held that mere contract violation does not exclude criminal liability when coal diversion is alleged, and dismissed the petition as cognizance had already been taken.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings is dismissed.

M/S Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through Its Pro Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (Cr.) No. 303 of 2011

¶3

M/s Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through its Proprietor Ashok Kumar Singh, son of late Digambar Singh, Resident of Gandhi Nagar East, Line No. 2, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offence Wing, 8^th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶6

Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi. … … Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Ms. Archi Ravi, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ---

¶9

06 /06.01.2020

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Archi Ravi, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶11

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including First Information Report registered by the CBI, Ranchi being FIR No. RC 12(A)/2011-R dated 11.10.2011 under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is now said to be pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the First Information Report, no criminal case is made out against the petitioner, in as much as, the FSA (Fuel Supply Agreement) was entered on 30.04.2008 for supply of coal and there is no allegation of any cheating or misrepresentation prior to entering of the agreement and the

¶13

¶14

entire allegation relates to violation of terms and conditions of the agreement after entering into the agreement. The learned counsel further submits that in such case, the allegation even if taken on the face to be correct, is in the realm of civil dispute between the parties arising out of violation of the contract and therefore, the entire proceeding is fit to be quashed and setaside.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, submits that from perusal of the status report which has been received from the learned court below, it appears that cognizance of offence has been taken as back as on 19.12.2012 and the order taking cognizance is not under challenge. He further submits that merely because there is a violation of the agreement that does not exclude the criminal liability of the petitioner which arises out of diversion of coal as alleged in the F.I.R., and accordingly, it cannot be said that prima-facie no criminal case is made out. He further submits that quashing of the F.I.R. arises only in rarest of the rare case and once the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken, the F.I.R. may not be quashed by this court.

¶16

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that merely because there is an allegation of violation of certain terms and conditions of the FSA dated 30.04.2008, it cannot be said that there cannot be any criminal angle to the alleged offence particularly when there is an allegation of diversion of coal which was to be utilized by the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the Fuel Supply Agreement. It is also not in dispute that the coal under Fuel Supply Agreement was to be supplied for specified purpose at notified price which was admittedly much less than the price of

¶17

¶18

coal when purchased from e-auction. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that ex-facie , no criminal case is made out against the petitioner, is hereby rejected. This Court also finds that after investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been taken and the order taking cognizance has not been challenged. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this case, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

7. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition as well as any other point that may be available to the petitioner under law before the learned court below at appropriate stage and dismissal of the petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶21

9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed.

¶22

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

Mukul

M/S Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through Its Pro v. Union of India And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through Its Pro v. Union of India And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police

Basant Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand

Union of India Vs Shri Lakshman Singh

Prafulla Ranjan Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand Th.Cbi

Satish Chandra Shrivastava Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Bureau Ranchi