Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rakesh Kumar Ii v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Jharkhand HC13 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1789/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings based on deposition of misappropriated funds. Court held deposit is not a ground for quashing when direct allegations of public money misappropriation exist and trial is required.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings is dismissed. No relief is extended.

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rakesh Kumar Ii Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1789 of 2017

¶3

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar-II ..... … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through CBI ..... … Opposite Party --------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. ------

¶6

09/ 13.10.2023 Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. for the CBI. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 09.03.2015, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with RC-6(A)/2014-R, pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

¶7

The FIR was registered by the Superintendent of Police and Head of Ranchi, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, on the ground that the informant got an information to the effect that the petitioner while posted as S.D.E. (North), BSNL, Ranchi allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy with others unknown during the period October, 2013 to December, 2013 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has alleged to have been misappropriated 100 pair underground cable of 100 meters, 200 pair underground cable of 1037 meters, 400 pair underground cable of 451 meters and 800 pair underground cable of 791 meters and thereby caused wrongful gain to the accused persons including the petitioner and corresponding loss to the BSNL. It has been further alleged that requisitions for underground cables so submitted by the petitioner for approval were allegedly manipulated by the petitioner after its approval to change the quantity and size of the underground cable before taking the same to S.D.E (Stores). It has also been alleged that issued vouchers were issued by the S.D.E (Stores) in favour of the petitioner, which were handed over to Shri Anugraha Singh by the petitioner and ultimately the said Shri Anugaha Singh received the underground cables from the store.

¶8

-2-

¶9

Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 15,90,545.46 through Bank Draft No. 423112 dated 24.02.2016 through State Bank of India, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, pursuant to the order passed in the anticipatory bail application. He further submits that there is no allegation so far as the petitioner is concerned and on these grounds, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶10

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that the allegations are there and when a crime is made by a public servant even the deposition of the amount is not the ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

¶11

In view of the above, looking into the FIR, there is direct allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation of Rs. 10,95,461/and due to that BSNL has caused loss due to non-utilization of the underground cables in question, and the same was not accepted by the BSNL. The allegations are further there that the petitioner in conspiracy of with one Mahadev Linda, Telephone Mechanic, CMPDI Exchange, North Sub-Division, BSNL, Ranchi, prepared false records showing the utilization of the aforesaid cables in North Sub-Division, BSNL, Ranchi on different dates during the relevant period.

¶12

Thus, there are direct allegations against the petitioner and the order, taking cognizance, is well reasoned order and the learned court after looking into the entire aspect of the matter, has been pleased to take cognizance.

¶13

Whether on the basis of depositing the amount, the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed or not that can be only be proved in trial. Even depositing the public money cannot be a ground of quashing the criminal proceeding in a case where allegations are there of misappropriating the public money.

¶14

No relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶15

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶16

Amitesh/-

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rakesh Kumar Ii v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rakesh Kumar Ii v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

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

Sabita Gupta Alias Savita Gupta Vs the State of Jhakrhand

Ashok Kumar Agarwal And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mahesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Inspector General of Police

Bishnu Kant Mandal Vs Most Prasklaa Tudu

Nirman Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand