Court quashes criminal proceedings due to lack of evidence.

The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC. It found insufficient evidence to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. Relying on the principle that prosecution cannot continue after exoneration in adjudication proceedings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the charge-sheet filed by the CBI.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Legitimacy of charges framed under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC.
3. Validity of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities.
4. Jurisdiction of CBI to investigate and prosecute the case.
5. Application of precedents and legal principles from previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against him in Crime No.RC/1242010A0009 of 2012 by the CBI, arguing that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and law. The petitioner contended that the initiation of the proceedings was not in accordance with law, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in *State of U.P. vs Suresh Chand* and the Gujarat High Court in *Soni Dinesh Kumar Dahiya vs State of Gujarat*.

2. Legitimacy of Charges Under IPC Sections:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC. He argued that there was no evidence of fraud, impersonation, or manipulation of bank records. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the rent receipts were in the name of Shri R.D. Goyal and that co-accused B.L. Agrawal never used his original signature while operating the locker. The counsel also argued that the petitioner never visited the bank for operating the locker, as evidenced by CCTV footage, and that the application for changing the locker ownership was anti-dated.

3. Validity of Petitioner's Involvement:
The petitioner argued that the cash found in the locker belonged to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Mamta Agrawal, who had admitted in her statement that the money was withdrawn from her account. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime and that the confessional statement of Antony Samy exonerated him. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgments in *Satish Mehra vs State of NCIT* and *Radheshyam vs State of West Bengal*, arguing that prosecution on the same facts and circumstances was not permissible after exoneration by the Income Tax authorities.

4. Jurisdiction of CBI:
The petitioner argued that the CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the case under Sections 5 & 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The counsel for CBI, however, submitted that the investigation was fully conducted, and incriminating evidence was found, justifying the filing of the charge-sheet.

5. Application of Precedents and Legal Principles:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal*, which held that criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances could not continue if the person was exonerated on merits in adjudication proceedings. The court noted that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than in adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities was not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings, including the charge-sheet filed by the CBI, were quashed. The court emphasized the principle that criminal prosecution cannot continue if the person is exonerated on merits in adjudication proceedings, as established in *Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal*.

---