Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.21 10:28:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:13282-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1013 of 2025 Swarn Singh S/o Hardial Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Medical Enclave, Kothi No.-415, P.S.- Majhitha Road, Amritsar, District- Amritsar (Punjab), (As Per Ann. P/2), Director of M/s Grindley Project And Developers Limited) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Golbajar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Alakhram Sahu S/o Shri Lakshman Singh Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Bhendara, Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 2 To 6 Is Extracted From Ann. P/7) 3 - Tahal Singh Sahu S/o Kushalram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Pairi, Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 2 To 6 Is Extracted From Ann. P/7) 4 - Jagannath Sahu S/o Bahur Singh Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Jugdehi, Tehsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 2 To 6 Is Extracted From Ann. P/7) 5 - Smt. Geeta Sahu W/o Shri Johanlal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Charbhata, Tehsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 2 To 6 Is Extracted From Ann. P/7) 6 - Savitri Sahu W/o Shri Toranlal Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Parsati (T.), Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 2 To 6 Is Extracted From Ann. P/7) 2 7 - Hemin Devi Wd/o Kamta Prasad Sahu R/o Village- Bhandara, Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 7 To 8 Is Extracted From Ann. P/10) 8 - Poonam Sahu W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu R/o Chauhan Green Valley, Junwani, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.), (Details of Respondent No. 7 To 8 Is Extracted From Ann. P/10) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 20.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “A] To kindly Quash the (Part of Ann. P/1) impugned First Information Report No. 108/2015 dated 22.06.2015, Registered at P.S. Golbajar, District Raipur (C.G.) against the Petitioner. 3 B] To kindly Quash the (Ann. P/1) impugned Final Report/Charge-Sheet No. 21/2018 21/2018 dated 25.03.2016 (as far as role of Petitioner is concerned). C] To kindly Quash the (Ann. P/2) impugned Final Report/Supplementary Charge-Sheet No. 21 C (2016)/2023 dated 27.03.2023 filed against the Petitioner for the offences punishable U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of IPC, U/s. 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulating Schemes (Banning)-Act, 1978 & U/s. 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors interest Act, 2005. D] To kindly Quash the (Ann. P/3) impugned Order dated 30.05.2023 by which Charges have been framed against the Petitioner and kindly be pleased to discharge the Petitioner. E To kindly Quash the (Ann. P/4) impugned Order dated 31.03.2023 whereby the learned Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned Final Report/ Supplementary Charge-Sheet and registered the impugned Criminal Proceedings as Special Criminal Case No. 02/2023 against the Petitioner and subsequent proceedings thereto. F] And to kindly grant any other relief to the Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem 4 fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant (respondent No.2) lodged the First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') for taking appropriate action against the Director and Manager of Grindle Forestery India Limited and Gindley Project and Developers Limited and the Manager of Gramin Projects and Infra Developers Limited. Grindlays Forestery India Limited was operating in State of M.P. now C.G. from 1997 to 2000 and Grindlays Project and Developers Limited has operated from 2000-2001. The said Company was taken care and operated by one Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra. The Directors of the company were (i) Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra, (ii) Shri Santosh Sikdar and (iii) Shri Swarn Singh. There are around 200 agents and amount of agents and complainants are around 8 Crore and the Property of the Company is worth Rs. 12 Crore. There were many schemes of the Company such as to double the amount so deposited, to return the amount with interest if they deposit in Recurring Deposit Account and/or in Fixed Deposit Account. Around 71 Acres of Lands were also purchased in the name of Alok Kumar Bhadra in District Raipur & Durg. In the year 2009, the Company has closed all its the Branch Offices and changed its name to Gramin Projects and Infra Developers Limited and Started a Company called Gramin Project Infra Developers Limited from the residence of Krishna Prasad Chandrakar, who in the Capacity of Manager and in connivance with directors of Grindlays Forestery India Limited and Grindlays Project and Developers Limited has sold of the Properties 5 and embezzled the amount. When the Company did not return the deposited amount of investors/account holders, they filed the complaint before Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C.G.) regarding embezzlement of money who in turn directed the Research Cell to investigate the matter and record the statements of complainant/investors/account holders etc. The research cell then also requested the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) for re-investigation. During the re- investigation, the Explanation was sought from Directors who in turn have filed the documents stating that the money has been returned the investors/account holders by selling the properties. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner and one Shri Santosh Sikdar called the workers/agents etc. to Amritsar Punjab on 28.02.2013 and constituted a Advisory Committee to provide assistant to account holders/investors so that the deposited amount be returned to them. It was further directed to open the Bank Account in C.G. in the name of Advisory Committee and by selling the lands, they money be transferred to investors/account holders. The Committee consists of (i) Alakhram Sahu (respondent No. 2) as President, (ii) Shri Kamta Prasad Sahu (respondents No. 7 & 8 are LR's of Late Kamta Prasad Sahu) as Vice President and (iii) Shri Krishna Prasad Chandrakar (Co-accused) as Secretary and 5 other members were nominated in the team. When the land of Grindlays Project and Developers Limited in the name of Alok Kumar Bhadra was illegally sold by the Manager Krishna Kumar Chandrakar, the same was objected by investors/account holders to which District Collector Balod has further stayed the sale of the land 6 bearing Khasra No. 201, Admeasuring 7.50 Acre, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) after detailed enquiry has passed the order to sale the same and the amount of sale be disbursed to the account holders/investors and the said report was forwarded to District Collector, Balod on 04.06.2014. 5. The Directors of the Company gave Power of Attorney in Amritsar to Shri Alakhram Sahu (respondent No. 2) regarding sale the Lands in Raipur & Durg which was subsequently sold on 20.01.2015 at the rate of 1270 per Sqaure feet. When the Revenue Records found incorrect, the application for demarcation was filed and the demarcation was supposed to be carried out on 28.05.2015. The Directors were also called to remain present at the site and an advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/-was also sought from Directors. Due to their absence and non-depositing the amount, the demarcation could not carried out and on 04.06.2015 and Rs.2,50,000/- was demanded by Directors. After realising that they have been cheated so long, they lodged the complaint. The amounts of the investors/account holders gets matured in the year 2009-10 and since then the amount was not returned to them and hence the complaint was filed against the Directors and Manager of the company. The police authorities of PS Golbajar, District Raipur (C.G.) has registered the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.108/2015 and investigated the matter. 6. During the investigation, only one accused i.e. Shri Krishna Prasad Chandrakar was arrested and charge-sheeted vide charge- 7 sheet No.21/2016 dated 25.03.2016 for the Offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of the IPC as well as under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulating Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Prize Chits and Money Laundering Act, 1978. The other three accused were absconding at that point of time. 7. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before Jurisdictional Criminal Court i.e. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) which was registered as Criminal Case No.4818/2016 which is pending under consideration. During the pendency of the said case, co-accused namely Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra was arrested on 04.06.2019 and subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No.21- A/2019 dated 28.08.2019 was filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of the IPC as well as Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulating Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 8. The charge-sheet was filed before Jurisdictional Criminal Court and the trial is pending under consideration for both the accused which is also reflected from the order dated 17.03.2021, passed in Criminal Case No.4818/2016. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner namely Swarn Singh was also arrested on 03.02.2023 and supplementary charge-sheet No.21-C(2016)/2023 dated 27.03.2023 was filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of IPC, under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulating Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 8 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors interest Act, 2005. Since the offence under the the provisions of the C.G. Protection of Depositors interest Act, 2005 was added against the Petitioner, the charge-sheet against him was filed before the Session Court, Raipur (C.G.), which is pending under consideration and the charges have been framed against him. 9. During the pendency of the cases, the grievance of the complainants were redressed by the petitioner and they have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court without any fear, favour or pressure. The petitioner is 67 years old man and he wanted to settle the dispute from the inception and he has guided the other investors/account holders to resolve the dispute. It was the petitioner who has constituted the committee to provide assistance so that the amount so deposited/invested by the complainants and other persons should be returned. The complainants (other than Kamta Prasad Sahu) has jointly executed the agreement with petitioner to resolve their dispute and the entire amount has been given to them and they have no complaints/grievances against the petitioner. The compromise agreement dated 30.07.2024 executed between the complainants (other than Kamta Prasad Sahu) as well as the complainants namely Shri Alakh Ram Sahu, Shri Tahal Singh Sahu, Shri Jagannath Sahu, Ms. Geeta Sahu and Ms. Savitri Sahu (respondents No. 2 to 6) in their personal capacity have also executed the compromise agreement with the petitioner. 10. Since, Kamta Prasad Sahu died on 14.04.2023, the compromise 9 agreement was conducted by their legal heirs. The Joint compromise agreement dated 06.11.2024 was executed by Hemin Devi and Poonam Sahu (respondents No. 7 and 8) with the petitioner. There is amicable settlement arrived between the complainants and the petitioner and the original complainants does not want to prosecute the petitioner in the instant crime number. 11. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is amicable settlement arrived between the complainants and the petitioner, as such, the police authorities ought to appreciate that it was the petitioner who was ready to settle the dispute in the year 2013 when he got to know about the alleged fraud. He further submits that the petitioner has constituted the committee to resolve the dispute in which some complainants were also the members. It has been contended that the petitioner is 67 years old man, he is a businessman, he has having reputation, he is running the business since long and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has completely satisfied all the complainants (original complainants) and the persons whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). It has been further contended that as of now, every single witness is ready and willing to settle their dispute with the petitioner and their grievance is already redressed. It is admitted in position that there are two trial is continuing for the same offence, such as, FIR No.108/2015 was registered at Police Station Golbazar, Raipur (C.G.) and the two different Criminal Courts i.e. (i) Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.4818/2016 10 has taken cognizance and (ii) Special Sessions Judge in Special Criminal Case No.02/2023 has taken cognizance; meaning thereby that possibility of two different views of two different criminal Court for the same offence could not be ruled out. It has been argued that though, the application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 216 and 323 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge and for committal of the case, which is reflected from the order dated 10.08.2023 of Criminal Case No.4818/2016. It has been further argued that all the complainants and the witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have entered into compromise with the petitioner in pursuance to the FIR under the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, the Competent Authority/Prescribed Authority has attached the properties of company in District Raipur, Durg, Balod etc. It has been submitted that prima facie case has been made out to quash the proceedings so far as petitioner role is concerned and even if the grievances of the complainants exists, the properties worth Crores of rupees are already attached. The grievance against the petitioner are satisfied and they will be having no objection if the proceedings will be quashed against the petitioner as the same is reflected from their compromise agreement. It has been further submitted that in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no such case is made out against the petitioner and the complainants/witnesses will only suffer to come to two different criminal Courts to record their statements. Especially when grievance of the complainants are satisfied, there is no occasion to prosecute the 11 petitioner in the instant case. It has been also submitted that one case is pending before Special Sessions Court, where trial of only petitioner is pending in which the prosecution will not be fruitful as there is compromise agreement between the complainants and petitioner and second is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such, the proceedings before the Special Sessions Court is nothing but the abuse of process and to meet the ends of justice, entire proceedings being initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is Director of the company, who has taken money from the depositors through the 6 complainants, one of which is died and his legal heirs were already made a party. It has been contended that in the present case, a huge amount of more than Rs.8 crores have been invovled, which is reflected from the FIR and charge-sheet, and as such, no interference is called for. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 14. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in 12 exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 15. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (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 13 within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (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. (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. (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 every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (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 14 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. (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.” 16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 15 17. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; 16 iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; 17 ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds 18 that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of 19 a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to 20 apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an 21 interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 19. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that a complaint application jointly signed by Shri Alakhram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Sam, aged about 42 years, R/o Bhendra, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod and other associates Shri Tahil Singh Sahu, Shri Kanta Prasad, Shri Jagannath Sahu, Ms. Geeta Sahu and Ms. Savitri Sahu was given to the City Superintendent of Police, City Kotwali, Raipur, in which it has been alleged that Gridley Forestry India Limited and Prindle 22 Project's Director Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra (from Raipur), Shri Santosh Sikdar (from Ambala) and Shri Swarn Singh (from Amritsar, Punjab) have fraudulently defrauded the beneficiaries and agents of about Rs.8 Crores and appropriate legal action should be taken against the non- applicants. On investigation of the written complaint, a crime was registered against the accused and during investigation, the bound paper of the company presented by Shri Alakhram Sahu and other investors were received. Related documents of Gridley Company were also obtained. Statements of investors and witnesses were taken. Information regarding the business dealings of Gridley Company was received from the Reserve Bank of India, in which the said company has not been given permission by the RBI to do business. During the investigation, it was found that Gridley Forest India Company's Directors namely, Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra, Shri Swarn Singh and Shri Santosh Sikdar had opened a branch office of the company at Zainab Manson Bastal Raipur since 2001 and was operating it. The company collected around Rs.8 Crores from the investors by telling them about various attractive schemes and promising to double and triple the amount deposited by the investors. The company has also purchased land in its name at various places. Even after the completion of the scheme period, Shri Krishna Prasad Chandrakar cheated the investors by not returning the money as promised by the investors, who was found to be involved in the fraud by colluding with the directors of the company. It was further mentioned that Shri Krishna Prasad Chandrakar was arrested on 29.12.2016 and is in judicial custody and evidence of crime 23 was also found against other accused persons namely Shri Santosh Sikdar, Shri Swarn Singh and Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra. The accused are absconding since the incident. Despite a lot of efforts for their arrest, the accused could not be found, as such, absconding Panchnama of accused Shri Swarn Singh, Shri Santosh Sikdar and Shri Alok Kumar Bhadra has been prepared and documents of information about movable and immovable property have been obtained. The remand period of the arrested of Krishna Prasad Chandrakar is about to end. The accused in the case, Gridley Forestry India Ltd. and Gridley Project and Developers Ltd., have made the investors invest money and the directors and agents, in the course of their business, have received money directly from the investors without taking permission from Reserve Bank of India, by declaring their company as a Bank. It was also mentioned that against the accused in the present case, namely Swarn Singh, an offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Banning Act 1978 was added. Since sufficient evidence was found against the accused for the crime, investigation of the case continued and charge-sheet No.21/16 was prepared against accused Krishna Prasad Chandrakar under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., which is presented before the jurisdictional Court. 20. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 24 528 of the B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 21. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 22. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant as well as charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. It has been further considering the fact that during such a reputed service, he has committed offence of financial irregularities, as such, the present petition does not fall in any of such 25 category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR as well as further proceedings. 23. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 24. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed. 25. Let the original copy of the agreement shall be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu