Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section of the (‘CrPC’) to quash the complaint case under Sections , , , , of the (‘IPC’) and also to quash the summoning order and the order passed in the Criminal Revision, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. while quashing the impugned orders, said that the Magistrate failed to conduct even a basic preliminary inquiry in order to ascertain the roles and duties of the individuals before mechanically summoning all the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
Background:
The applicants are the Director and Chief Financial Officer, Vice president, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director in Larsen and Toubro Ltd (L&T) and are responsible for policymaking and overseeing the company’s projects on a day-to-day basis. There was a complaint filed against them alleging criminal breach of trust and provocation. In response, they filed the present applications seeking to quash the proceedings.
Contentions:
The applicants contended that the alleged incident took place in Lucknow, but they were neither posted nor present there at that time. The incident revolves around issuing cheques to the company on different dates, which the complainant alleges were kickbacks and losses compensated by him. The applicants contended that the allegations against them lacked substance and were based on fabricated claims. They maintain that they were not involved in the alleged incident and that the complaint does not establish any criminal liability on their part.
It was also argued that the summons were issued without complying with the mandatory Section of the , despite the applicants living beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, rendering the summoning order void.
On the other hand, the opposite party contended that they were manipulated into providing the cheques under false pretenses. Moreover, they highlight discrepancies in the petitioner’s affidavits and cited inconsistencies in the identities of the deponents, which they argue deviate from standard criminal procedure.
Decision:
The Court said that summoning the accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the proceedings without proper examination of the allegations and evidence should be quashed.
The Court highlighted that the failure of the Magistrate to comply substantially with Section of the , led to failureof justice.
After referring to Abhijit Pawar, the Court noted that the Section was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22-06-2006 by adding the words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” . The Court said that the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment.
The Court said that the Magistrate failed to conduct even a basic preliminary inquiry to ascertain the roles and duties of the individuals before mechanically summoning all the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned orders.
[R. Shankar Raman v State of U.P. Application U/S 482 No. 4806 of 2018, Order dated 26-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant : Advocate Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Devika Singh, Advocate Harish Pandey, Advocate Jitendra Kumar, Advocate Sima Gulati, Advocate Subhash Gulati
Counsel for Opposite Party : Govt. Advocate, Manish Kumar Tripathi ,Rajiv Kumar Srivastava
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .