Dismissed

Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma v. the Union of India through C B I

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./406/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed three mercy petitions seeking to quash an order framing charges under the IPC and PC Act. The court held that the case met the threshold for investigation and quashing was not warranted at this stage, leaving the defense contentions for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashing of the order framing charges and the entire criminal proceedings dismissed; prayers for interference rejected.

Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma Vs the Union of India through C B I — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 406 of 2020

¶3

Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through C.B.I. 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its General Manager, Retail & Duly Constituted Attorney, Shri Sumant Jha. ..... … Opposite Parties with Cr.M.P. No. 2534 of 2020 Narendra Prasad Sharma ..... … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. ..... … Opposite Party with Cr.M.P. No. 2561 of 2020 Kumud Ranjan @ Pintu Sharma ..... … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. ..... … Opposite Party --------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

-----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. : Ms Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. For the HPCL : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate. ------

¶6

09/ 02.08.2023 In all these cases, the common FIR and entire criminal proceedings as well as the impugned order of framing charge are under challenge, these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

¶7

Heard Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. for the CBI and Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the HPCL.

¶8

In all these petitions, the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order of framing charge dated 14.11.2019, by which, charge under Sections 120(B) / 420 / 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been framed against the petitioners, in connection with R.C.03(A)/17-R, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

¶9

The prosecution case is based on the written report of informant stating that Shri U. Krishna Murty, Chief Vigilance Officer, HPCL during the period April 2012 to November 2016, Shri Rajesh Singh while working as Sr. Accounts officer, Ranchi Retail Regional Office (R.O.) HPCL along with Shri Avijit Chakroborty, Chief Administrative Superintendent, Ranchi

¶10

-2-

¶11

Retail Regional Office (RO), HPCL entered into criminal conspiracy with proprietors / directors of 1) M/s of Jai Shiv Enterprises, Deoghar, 2) M/s N.K Enterprises, Hazaribagh, M/s M.S Kalcy, , Jamshedpur, Hazaribagh, 4) M/s Maa Kali Construction, Hazaribagh, 5) M/s R.K Enterprises, Jamshedpur, 6) M/s Shri Hanumanjee Enterprises, Jamshedpur, 7) M/s Sai Baba Construction Company, Jamshedpur, 8) M/s D.H. Enterprises, Jamshedpur and other unknown and by abusing their official position, as Public servant dishonestly and fraudulently created 3178 numbers of fictitious PX vouchers and made fraudulent payment of total Rs.5.57 Crores (approx) to the aforesaid eight accused firms through E.R.P. System, without supporting documents / vouchers. Thus, HPCL was put to a wrongful loss of Rs. 5.57 Crores (Approx) by the aforesaid accused persons and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

¶12

Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the investigation, the chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioners along with others and the learned court by the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 has been pleased to frame the charge against them. He submits that the allegations are with regard to the period of 05.05.2011, wherein the petitioners were in business terms with the HPCL as registered firms i.e. the petitioner Narendra Prasad Sharma (in Cr.M.P. No. 2534 of 2020) since 15.07.2005, the petitioner Kumud Ranjan (in Cr.M.P. No. 2561 of 2020) since 15.12.2014 and the petitioner Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma (in Cr.M.P. No. 406 of 2020) from January, 2008. He submits that at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioners were not doing the business, however, they have unnecessarily been implicated in the case. He further submits that the accused persons, who were tackling the User Department has not been made accused and the chargesheet against the Avijit Chakroborty was not submitted by the CBI. He further submits that in these backgrounds, the case under Section 120-B IPC is not made out and if 120-B is not made out the relevant Sections of the IPC, under which, the chargesheet has been submitted is also unwarranted. He further submits that the learned court has framed the charge, which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners are malicious one and the same may kindly be quashed.

¶13

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I.

¶14

-3-

¶15

appearing for the CBI submits that the case was registered for investigation of fake payment made in connivance of some of the officials of the HPCL and it was found that on the basis of 3320 fake vouchers, the payments have been made by the nine firms and the firms of these petitioners are M/s R.K Enterprises, M/s Sai Baba Construction Company, Jamshedpur and M/s Sri Sai Construction, which has been disclosed in internal page-19 of the chargesheet. He submits that so far Avijit Chakroborty is concerned, he was on leave almost for 370 days, as he was suffering from heart ailment and the Rajesh Kumar Singh has dishonestly used the Password and system of the HPCL and the chargesheet has also been submitted against the said Rajesh Kumar Singh. He submits that the cases of the other co-accused namely Ms Inderjeet Kalsey @ Inderjit Kalsey @ Indrajit Kalsey and Vijay Kumar Tiwary @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari @ Vijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar Tiwary in Cr.M.P. No. 343 of 2020 and Cr.M.P. No. 337 of 2020 respectively have been dismissed. He further submits that the case of the present petitioners are also on the similar footing.

¶16

Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the HPCL submits that the petitioners have transferred the cash amount in the account of the prime accused Rajesh Singh, which has come in the internal page-21 of the chargesheet.

¶17

In view of the above submissions of the parties, it appears that in the chargesheet it has come that on the basis of fake vouchers of the companies of these petitioners, the payment has been made and this has come pursuant to the thorough examination made by the CBI. The petitioners have transferred the cash amount in the account of the prime accused Rajesh Singh, which has come in the internal page-21 of the chargesheet. The case of the other co-accused persons have already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Cr.M.P. No. 343 of 2020 and Cr.M.P. No. 337 of 2020. The order, by which, the charge has been framed is in accordance with law. The requirement of framing the charge to explain the clarity as to what charge the petitioners have been called upon to face the trial and that is in accordance with law. There are parameters of quashing the entire criminal proceeding and at this stage, this court is not required to rove into and come to the conclusion that the case is not made out.

¶18

The circumspection with regard to such charge has been

¶19

-4-

¶20

elaborately dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Versus R. Soundirarasu etc . reported in AIR 2022 SC 4218 .

¶21

In view of the above, the court finds that no case of interference is made out, accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. 11. What has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are the defence, which can only be considered by the learned trial court in course of trial.

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

Amitesh/-

Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma v. the Union of India through C B I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar Prasad Sharma v. the Union of India through C B I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

Mehul Kumar Basant And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramdas Prajapati Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Lakkhi Soren Alias Lakkhi Vs State of Jharkhand