Dismissed

Satnam Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC18 Apr 2022C482/480/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC. The Court held that prima facie offence was made out based on the chargesheet and no interference was warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no interference with the chargesheet dated 27.05.2021 was ordered.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 480 of 2022

¶3

Satnam Singh …........ Applicant

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another …..... Respondents

¶6

Present : Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

The challenge in this petition is made to the chargesheet dated 27.05.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 5256 of 2021, State v. Satnam Singh, under Section 406 IPC, by the court of 1^st Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”).

¶10

The facts necessary to appreciate the

¶11

controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The respondent no. 2 (“the informant”) filed an FIR on 26.02.2020 under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner and another. According to the FIR, the petitioner is running his business in the name and style of “M/s Khalsa Transport

¶12

¶13

Company, Bilaspur, District Rampur”. The informant had to send rice to Karnal, Haryana. The petitioner provided him a Truck No. PB 04 AA -0972 (“the truck”). The truck was loaded with rice and dispatched on 11.01.2022, but it did not reach to its destination. The total cost of rice was Rs. 10,04,275/-. The informant unsuccessfully tried to contact the truck driver. When the petitioner was approached, he also did not reply satisfactorily. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted.

¶14

According to the chargesheet, the petitioner had provided the truck. He had taken Rs. 10,000/- as the charge for transporting the rice. It is the transporter, who, according to the chargesheet, had provided photograph of the truck, driving licence of the driver as well as the photocopy of the registration certificate. Subsequently, it was revealed that, according to the registration certificate, the owner of the truck was Pyara Singh and it was Daimler India Limited make, whereas the photograph, which the petitioner had provided was of a vehicle with Mahindra make. The driving licence, which the petitioner had provided, was in the name of one Aas Mohammad, who, according to the Investigating Officer (“IO”) was at his residence for the last one year due to injuries sustained in an accident. The photograph on the driving licence of Aas

¶15

¶16

Mohammad was not that of Aas Mohammad. The owner of the truck had revealed that he never provided his truck for providing any article from the truck. The driver is still missing.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner. He would raise the following points as well in his submission:-

¶19

(i) The FIR is delayed. The rice was allegedly loaded on the truck on 11.01.2020, but the FIR was lodged on 26.02.2020.

¶20

(ii) The petitioner is not the driver of the truck.

¶21

(iii) It is purely a dispute civil in nature, which has been criminal colour.

¶22

(iv) The only against the petitioner is that he did not verify the credentials of the driver.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner is the main accused. It is he, who provided the truck and the driver. The rice loaded

¶24

¶25

with the truck was not transported to its destination, hence, the case is made out.

¶26

It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). In case, prima facie offence is made out, generally no interference is warranted. It is such a wide jurisdiction, which may be exercised to meet the ends of justice, but much guided by the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.

¶27

In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustratively gave a list of circumstances, under which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be invoked. In paragraph 102 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

¶28

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶29

¶30

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶31

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶32

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶33

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶34

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶35

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶36

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶37

In the instant case, the FIR has been lodged under Section 406 IPC and the chargesheet has been filed under that Section. Section 406 IPC provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust. “Criminal breach

¶38

¶39

of trust” has been defined under Section 405 IPC, which is as hereunder:-

¶40

“ 405. Criminal breach of trust. – Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

¶41

Explanation 1 – A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

¶42

Explanation 2. – A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.”

¶43

Amongst others, the essentials of an offence of criminal breach of trust are entrustment and dishonest misappropriation of the property so entrusted.

¶44

¶45

In the instant case, according to the

¶46

prosecution, it is the petitioner, who had provided the truck. It is the petitioner, who had provided the truck driver. It is the petitioner, who had given photocopies of the driving licence of the driver, of the registration certificate, as also the photograph of the truck. According to the chargesheet, they all were not genuine. According to the Registration Certificate, the truck was Daimler India Limited make, whereas the photograph, which the petitioner provided, according to the chargesheet, was Mahindra make. The driving licence, according to the chargesheet, which the petitioner provided, was that of Aas Mohammad, but it had no photograph of Aas Mohammad. Instead, it had photograph of some other person. Not only this, according to the chargesheet, Aas Mohammad was at his residence, injured in an accident, for the last one year when he was contacted. The driver has yet not been traced, as to where is he?

¶47

This matter would definitely require deeper scrutiny. This Court cannot conclude based on the material placed before this Court as to what was the exact role of the petitioner. But, what is stated in the chargesheet can also not rule out the complicity, at least prima facie, of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner had a

¶48

¶49

design to misappropriate the rice entrusted to him since inception? Fact remains, it is the petitioner, who was entrusted with the rice. It is the petitioner, who had to ensure the transportation of rice. The rice did not reach the destination.

¶50

Prima facie, offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to make interference. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶51

Avneet/

Satnam Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Jeneva Talwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunl Ghildiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mehtab Vs State of Uttarakhand

Furkan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravi Kant Ghildiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akshilesh Alias Akhil Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand