The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3769 of 2024 Muralidhar Agarwal …. Petitioner Mr.Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) & others …. Opp. Parties Mr.Niranjan Mahrana, ASC, Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 20.12.2024 1. Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party-State (Vigilance Department). 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., inter alia, praying for quashing of the Charge Sheet No.42, dated 29.09.2014 filed by the Vigilance Department for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Page 1 of 8
Decision
Order No. 02. Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the “P.C. Act”)/r/w Sections 379/467/468/471/409/411/120-B of the IPC. 3. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.53 of 2015, by which the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack has taken the cognizance of the offences as mentioned in the preceding paragraph in T.R. Case No.53 of 2015. 4. The opposite parties-Vigilance Department has lodged the F.I.R. being Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 of 2010 on the complaint of one Smt. Shantilata Behera . 5. It is alleged that, Smt. Behera had purchased one 10 wheeler truck under the hypothecation/lease agreement with Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited, which was registered with the Registering Authority (M.V.), Cuttack with Registration No.OR- 05-AA-1869 (hereinafter referred as “Offending Vehicle”). Since Smt. Shantilata Behera could not pay the monthly installments of repayment of the vehicle loan, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. took possession of the offending vehicle and put it on auction to recover the loan amount. One Sri Susanta Kumar Bal purchased the offending vehicle in the auction and thereafter sold the offending vehicle to Page 2 of 8 one Sri Surendra Jain of Kolkata (West Bengal). 6. Sri Surendra Jain brought the offending vehicle to Cuttack for the purpose of repair and regularization of the papers of the vehicle at RTA, Cuttack. Sri Jain stayed at Jasmine Hotel at Cuttack, which was owned by Sri Prasant Kumar Patra (Accused No.1). It is stated in the F.I.R. that, the Accused No.1, in connivance with Sri Dhaneswar Nayak (Accused No.2), who was posted as Traffic Inspector, Office of the RTO, Cuttack, enticed Sri Surendra Jain to get the repair work of the offending vehicle done at one Chagala Garage at Sikharpur, Cuttack. When the offending vehicle was taken to the said garage, accused No.2 suddenly arrived there and seized the offending vehicle under the charges of non-payment of the statutory charges/taxes and on the charge of driving the vehicle without requisite documents and permits. Exploiting this situation, Accused No.1, Mr. Patra struck a deal with Sri Surendra Jain to purchase the offending vehicle for a consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for which, cheques were dishonoured on presentation. When Sri Surendra Jain confronted with the Accused No.1 about dishonour of the cheques, Accused No.1 asked him to come to Cuttack to take cash in lieu of the cheques. Once, Sri Surendra Jain came to Cuttack, he came to know that Accused No.1 was plying the offending vehicle and when Sri Surendra Jain failed Page 3 of 8 to receive any satisfactory response from the Accused No.2 about plying of the offending vehicle, he reported the matter to the Vigilance Department leading to lodging of the F.I.R. by the opposite party- Vigilance Department naming Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 only in the F.I.R. 7. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department. As against the present petitioner, in the charge sheet, the following allegations are made: “Investigation revealed that Hind Metals and Industries (P) Ltd. is a company registered with ROC, Cuttack. The Directors of the said company are Sri Muralidhar Agarwal, S/o. Late Badri Prasad Agarwal of Gurudwara Road, Barbil. The other two directors of the said company are Sri Mahesh Agarwal, S/o. Late Badri Prasad Agarwal and Sri Sabyasachi Pradhan of Talatelanga Bazar, Cuttack. Investigation revealed that during the month of March 2010 the company had received a quantity of 38.150 M.T. of iron ore Ispat Udyog fines from M/s. Rajgangpur through truck No.OR-05-AA-1869 through a forged transit pass No.A-024921 dt. 22.3.2010. Investigation revealed that no such book being transit pass no.A-024921 has been issued by the Deputy Director Mines, Rourkela to M/s. the Rajgangpur Handwriting expert also opined that the said pass is a forged pass. The records of the consignee procured the iron ore fines shows only supply of 38.150 M.T. of iron ore fines. The M.D. Sri Muralidhar Agarwal from the forged T.P. was recovered could not give any plausible explanation about receipt of iron ore fines through forged T.P. and had exported such illegally/stolen iron ore fines.” Ispat Udyog. Further Page 4 of 8 8. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Hind Metal and Industries Private Limited and engaged in the business of trading and exporting of the minerals. 9. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, the petitioner is sought to be tried the criminal offences emanating from the FIR as referred to above. 10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that three petitions being CRLMC No.3566 of 2016, CRLMC No.3114 of 2018 and CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 pertaining to different accused persons, those who are exactly similarly situated like the present petitioner, have been disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed in the case of Md. Seraj Yusha v. State of Orissa (Vigilance) & ors and Batch. 11. In the said judgment of this Court, the facts and law has been discussed elaborately. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon paragraphs- 20 to 23 of the judgment in Md. Seraj Yusha ( supra), which are quoted hereunder: “20. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned Counsels for the opposite parties is that, if a crime is committed by any Partner or Member or Director of a Firm/Company, they should not be allowed to hide behind corporate veil rather which is oppose to public policy, therefore, corporate veil in such case is liable to be pierced. Page 5 of 8 through the chargesheet and 21. In principle the contentions raised by both the parties are correct, however, in the instant case that is not the test. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia stating that no case is made out against the petitioners even if the evidence collected and relied upon by the investigating agency are taken on its face value to be true. On the basis of the said test, I the have gone evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioners. The evidences so collected are disjuncting the petitioners’ role in the commission of the crime. The investigation is completely jumbled up and not an iota of evidence is brought on record to rope the present case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, wherein it is held that if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not in the quashing the criminal case. Therefore, aforementioned the circumstances petitioners to trial in the present case would be a futile excise in the absence of any material available on record against them. the petitioners subjecting in 22. In that view of the matter, subjecting the petitioners to trial on the strength of the available material would be a futile exercise on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the prosecution. However, quashing of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners on the available material as of today shall not preclude the learned Trial Court to invoke section 319 Cr.P.C in the event materials comes on record against the petitioners during the course of trial. 23. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed and the chargesheet No.42 dated 29.09.2014 filed by the opposite parties under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections Page 6 of 8 379/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 409/411/120-B of IPC in T.R. No.53 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, which is emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated 13.04.2010, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in all the three cases are quashed.” 12. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the case of the present petitioner is directly covered by the aforementioned judgment. 13. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that the role attributed to the accused in the present case is different from the overt attributed to the other accused. Therefore, the present petitioner cannot derive the benefit of the judgment of this Court as relied in Md. Seraj Yusha (supra). However, Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department could not dispute the factual scenario emanating from the record in so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 14. I have perused the allegation made against the petitioner and the materials form part of the charge sheet. I have also carefully gone through the judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2024 passed in Md. Seraj Yusha (supra) vis-à-vis the facts of the present case. Allegation made in the charge sheet against the present petitioner can’t be Page 7 of 8 distinguishable from the other accused in the case. Hence, there cannot be a second opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgment of this Court. Therefore, there is no point in taking a different view than the view which has already been taken by this court in case of the co-accused person. 15. Accordingly, the CRLMC deserves merit and is allowed. As a sequitur, the Charge Sheet No.42, dated 29.09.2014 filed by the Vigilance Department qua the present petitioner is quashed, besides quashing the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.53 of 2015. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Dec-2024 09:36:57 Page 8 of 8