Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E Ltd. vs India, the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the

Certiorari for quashing of the First Information Report dated

23.10.2024 bearing No.201 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District/Unit Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow).

4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is a Priest and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity and he has not committed any crime. He further submits that transaction of money was not done between the petitioner and Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5. He also submits that there is a notarial agreement between co-accused Madan Gupta and Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5 and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. The important fact is to be noted here that the notarial agreement, which is alleged to be executed between co-accused Madan Gupta and Jitendra Pandey, appears to be doubtful on the face of record for the reason that the said agreement is allegedly signed by co-accused Madan Gupta and there is no signature of Jitendra Pandey.

5. Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 by filing short counter affidavit submits that petitioner has fraudulently prepared a fake mining license and persuaded many people, including the informant, for investing the money in the business of co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar, who are said to be the owners of Sadana Steels. In fact, petitioner is the main operator of the mining and he in collusion with co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar is running a fake business, thereby cheating many people to invest their money in the business allegedly run by co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting huge money in a short span of time and also issued cheques to many people, which were later on dishonoured.

6. A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that petitioner in order to deceive Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5 made a false statement that co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar are the owners of Sadana Steels and they are also having mining lease in their favour. The petitioner had persuaded opposite party no.5 to invest money because co- accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar have got big business and in case he invests money, he would be benefitted. On persuasion made by the petitioner, opposite party no.5 transferred Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of co-accused Madan Gupta and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and in lieu thereof, co- accused Madan Gupta had given cheques amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- to opposite party no.5 which has been reduced into writing on Rs.100/- stamp paper, on which the petitioner made his signature as witness. When opposite party no.5 did not get any financial benefit, he asked the petitioner as well as co- accused Madan Gupta to return his money back, but they did not return the same. Thereafter, opposite party no.5 tried to encash the cheques, which were given by co-accused Madan Gupta, but the same were dishonoured. The above facts indicate that petitioner in collusion with co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar has cheated so many people including the informant persuading them to invest their money in the business run by co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting high return within a short span of time. The petitioner is not able to show any document, which can prove that allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated. More over, the alleged agreement is also notarial agreement and the same is neither registered nor signed by opposite party no.5.

7. It is well settled law time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences unless the allegations made in the FIR 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 while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605; Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059; Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E Ltd. and others, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195).

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padma Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2021) 15 SCC 595 held that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR and it may only intervene in exceptional cases if the allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.

9. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appel No. … of 2024, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.6583 of 2024, Somjeet Mallick Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, decided on 14.10.2024 held as under:- “16. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

17. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the Truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

18. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.”

10. Since the impugned FIR, prima facie, alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the petitioner and make out a case of criminal breach of trust as the petitioner has deliberately mislead the informant, thereby persuading him to transfer huge amount in the bank account of co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting high return within a short span of time. Therefore, there is no justification to quash the FIR at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the instigation.

11. Writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Rao/- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Certiorari for quashing of the First Information Report dated

23.10.2024 bearing No.201 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District/Unit Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow).

4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is a Priest and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity and he has not committed any crime. He further submits that transaction of money was not done between the petitioner and Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5. He also submits that there is a notarial agreement between co-accused Madan Gupta and Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5 and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. The important fact is to be noted here that the notarial agreement, which is alleged to be executed between co-accused Madan Gupta and Jitendra Pandey, appears to be doubtful on the face of record for the reason that the said agreement is allegedly signed by co-accused Madan Gupta and there is no signature of Jitendra Pandey.

5. Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 by filing short counter affidavit submits that petitioner has fraudulently prepared a fake mining license and persuaded many people, including the informant, for investing the money in the business of co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar, who are said to be the owners of Sadana Steels. In fact, petitioner is the main operator of the mining and he in collusion with co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar is running a fake business, thereby cheating many people to invest their money in the business allegedly run by co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting huge money in a short span of time and also issued cheques to many people, which were later on dishonoured.

6. A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that petitioner in order to deceive Jitendra Pandey-opposite party no.5 made a false statement that co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar are the owners of Sadana Steels and they are also having mining lease in their favour. The petitioner had persuaded opposite party no.5 to invest money because co- accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar have got big business and in case he invests money, he would be benefitted. On persuasion made by the petitioner, opposite party no.5 transferred Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of co-accused Madan Gupta and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and in lieu thereof, co- accused Madan Gupta had given cheques amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- to opposite party no.5 which has been reduced into writing on Rs.100/- stamp paper, on which the petitioner made his signature as witness. When opposite party no.5 did not get any financial benefit, he asked the petitioner as well as co- accused Madan Gupta to return his money back, but they did not return the same. Thereafter, opposite party no.5 tried to encash the cheques, which were given by co-accused Madan Gupta, but the same were dishonoured. The above facts indicate that petitioner in collusion with co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar has cheated so many people including the informant persuading them to invest their money in the business run by co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting high return within a short span of time. The petitioner is not able to show any document, which can prove that allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated. More over, the alleged agreement is also notarial agreement and the same is neither registered nor signed by opposite party no.5.

7. It is well settled law time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences unless the allegations made in the FIR 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 while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605; Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059; Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E Ltd. and others, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195).

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padma Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2021) 15 SCC 595 held that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR and it may only intervene in exceptional cases if the allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.

9. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appel No. … of 2024, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.6583 of 2024, Somjeet Mallick Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, decided on 14.10.2024 held as under:- “16. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

17. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the Truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

18. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.”

10. Since the impugned FIR, prima facie, alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the petitioner and make out a case of criminal breach of trust as the petitioner has deliberately mislead the informant, thereby persuading him to transfer huge amount in the bank account of co-accused Madan Gupta and Harveer Singh @ Kake Sardar on the pretext of getting high return within a short span of time. Therefore, there is no justification to quash the FIR at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the instigation.

11. Writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Rao/- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench