Bharat Bhushan Bharati v. State of U.P. and others) in which vide order dated

2. Heard Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Bharat Bhushan Bharati with the prayers to quash the charge sheet dated 22.10.2024 in Session Case No. 742 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2022, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 7A/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Windhamganj, District Sonbhadra as well as cognizance order dated 24.12.2024, pending in the court of Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.4, Varanasi and with the further prayer to stay the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 07.04.2022 by Samar Bahadur Singh the Assistant Development Officer, Vikas Khand Duddhi, District Sonbhadra against the applicant and Udai Pal Village Pradhan Bairkhai alleging therein that the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur directed an inquiry into the matter of purchase and installation of cemented benches in which an inquiry was conducted and it was found that there is discrepancy in the number of benches allegedly purchased and installed with that of the benches physically and actually installed at the relevant places. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 15.11.2024 was submitted against the applicant and co-accused named in the FIR on which the court concerned took cognizance vide order dated 24.12.2024 and passed an order to intimate the applicant since his arrest was stayed in a writ petition by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was at the relevant time posted as Village Development Officer, Duddhi and the number of cemented benches purchased were installed and fixed at the relevant places. It is submitted further that during the pendency of investigation, the applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15544 of 2024 (Bharat Bhushan Bharati Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which vide order dated 03.09.2024 a Division Bench of this Court had directed that until further orders of this Court no coercive action shall be taken against him. It is submitted that now since the charge sheet has been submitted on which cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been put to notice about it vide order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the court concerned, the applicant has filed the present petition. It is submitted that a departmental inquiry was conducted by the Divisional Development Officer, Babhni Sonbhadra and vide his report dated 06.04.2024 the allegations against the applicant were not found to have been proved. It is submitted that the applicant was thus exonerated in the departmental inquiry. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the investigation was conducted in which the Investigating Officer found credible evidence that the number of benches as fixed were less in number than those for which payment was done. It is submitted further that in so far as the departmental inquiry is concerned, the same are different proceedings and the present case is on the basis of a First Information Report lodged in which charge sheet has been submitted and the court concerned has taken cognizance and thus the trial in the present matter has to proceed. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the present case falls within the parameters of the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : (2020) 10 SCC 118 which would be a fit case for quashing. It is submitted that the present case be dismissed.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. After investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and a co-accused on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and put him to notice.

8. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:

13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.

13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.

13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)

13.5. 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.

13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

13.8. 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. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.

13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.

13.10. 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.

13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.

13.12. 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. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds 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.

13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

13.14. 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 R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

9. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023), the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

10. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is without any substance and is thus dismissed. Order Date :- 26.6.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)

2. Heard Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Bharat Bhushan Bharati with the prayers to quash the charge sheet dated 22.10.2024 in Session Case No. 742 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2022, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 7A/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Windhamganj, District Sonbhadra as well as cognizance order dated 24.12.2024, pending in the court of Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.4, Varanasi and with the further prayer to stay the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 07.04.2022 by Samar Bahadur Singh the Assistant Development Officer, Vikas Khand Duddhi, District Sonbhadra against the applicant and Udai Pal Village Pradhan Bairkhai alleging therein that the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur directed an inquiry into the matter of purchase and installation of cemented benches in which an inquiry was conducted and it was found that there is discrepancy in the number of benches allegedly purchased and installed with that of the benches physically and actually installed at the relevant places. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 15.11.2024 was submitted against the applicant and co-accused named in the FIR on which the court concerned took cognizance vide order dated 24.12.2024 and passed an order to intimate the applicant since his arrest was stayed in a writ petition by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was at the relevant time posted as Village Development Officer, Duddhi and the number of cemented benches purchased were installed and fixed at the relevant places. It is submitted further that during the pendency of investigation, the applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15544 of 2024 (Bharat Bhushan Bharati Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which vide order dated 03.09.2024 a Division Bench of this Court had directed that until further orders of this Court no coercive action shall be taken against him. It is submitted that now since the charge sheet has been submitted on which cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been put to notice about it vide order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the court concerned, the applicant has filed the present petition. It is submitted that a departmental inquiry was conducted by the Divisional Development Officer, Babhni Sonbhadra and vide his report dated 06.04.2024 the allegations against the applicant were not found to have been proved. It is submitted that the applicant was thus exonerated in the departmental inquiry. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the investigation was conducted in which the Investigating Officer found credible evidence that the number of benches as fixed were less in number than those for which payment was done. It is submitted further that in so far as the departmental inquiry is concerned, the same are different proceedings and the present case is on the basis of a First Information Report lodged in which charge sheet has been submitted and the court concerned has taken cognizance and thus the trial in the present matter has to proceed. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the present case falls within the parameters of the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : (2020) 10 SCC 118 which would be a fit case for quashing. It is submitted that the present case be dismissed.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. After investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and a co-accused on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and put him to notice.

8. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:

13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.

13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.

13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)

13.5. 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.

13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

13.8. 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. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.

13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.

13.10. 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.

13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.

13.12. 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. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds 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.

13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

13.14. 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 R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

9. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023), the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

10. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is without any substance and is thus dismissed. Order Date :- 26.6.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)