GANESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ...

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010-AHD-R including the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Ranchi, by which cognizance has been taken for the office punishable under sections 120B , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not assigned any role whatsoever in the criminal conspiracy so alleged. It has further been submitted that petitioner was merely a clerk in the office of M/s Runta Mines Limited, Ghatkuri and had issued some challans to Nikesh Kumar Sinha and Dharmendra Kumar for the purpose of use but the petitioner was never aware that challans so issued would be misused by the said persons. It has further been submitted that even in course of investigation, the complicity of the petitioner was not detected save and except the fact that challans were issued which were also entered into the challan issue register of M/s Runta Mines Limited. It has also been submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and the surrounding circumstances also do not point to the petitioner being a part of deliberate conspiracy, by which the State exchequer suffered a huge loss. Learned counsel adds that the Management of M/s Runta Mines Limited had made several complaints to the local police station pertaining to the transport challan Form-D and ultimately a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in May, 2010 against three employees of M/s Runta Mines Limited for misappropriation/misutilisation of the transport challans but the said complaint did not include the petitioner as an accused and therefore in absence of there being any incriminating circumstance showing the complicity of the petitioner, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the investigation had revealed about the source of issuance of transport challans D-Form and it cannot be deduced in the present proceeding regarding the non complicity of the petitioner as angle of the conspiracy which has been alleged against the petitioner constituting an offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has to be considered only at the appropriate stage.