2019 (6) TMI 1671 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings Dismissed, Second Charge Sheet Allowed

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, as no grounds for quashing were established. The ... Criminal Conspiracy - fabrication of documents by obtaining invoices from various firms in order to pass off the said iron ore to show that the same has been procured from legal sources - HELD THAT:- It is well settled law that once first information report is registered, the accused can always approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of ‘STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS VS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS’, [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] after taking note of the decisions in the cases of HAZARI LAL GUPTA VS RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR [1971 (12) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT], dealt with the contour of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The view taken by the Supreme Court has been reiterated in the case of BHAJAN LAL. From the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner herein being partner of M/s. S.B.Logistics in conspiracy with accused Nos.4, 5, 10, 11 and 16 supplied 20,000 metric tones of illegal iron ore to M/s SMSPL during the year 2009-10. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he had supplied iron ore without possessing valid permits issued by authorized Government agency. The activities of the petitioner in conspiracy and connivance with the other accused persons have caused wrongful loss of more than 90 crores to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons including the petitioner - The petitioner admittedly has filed an application under Section 239 of the Code for his discharge, which has been rejected by an order dated 03.10.2018. However, in the instant case, there is ample material on record against the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the charges against the petitioner are not the same. Therefore, the contention that the second charge sheet has been filed for the same offence also does not deserve acceptance - no case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code is made out - petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Legality of filing a second charge sheet for the same offence.3. Prosecution of partners without impleading the firm as an accused.4. Validity of selling stolen articles as an offence under IPC.5. Application of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashment of Proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC:The petitioner sought quashment of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 for offences under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired with others to purchase and transport illegal iron ore without valid permits, causing significant loss to the government. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed an application under Section 239 of the Code for discharge, which was rejected. The court found ample material on record against the petitioner and concluded that no case for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 was made out.2. Legality of Filing a Second Charge Sheet for the Same Offence:The petitioner argued that a second charge sheet for the same offence was not permissible. The court examined the allegations in both charge sheets and found that they were not identical. The first charge sheet pertained to the conspiracy and supply of 20,000 metric tonnes of illegal iron ore, while the second charge sheet involved the export of 7.58 lakh metric tonnes of illegal iron ore. The court concluded that the charges were different and thus, the second charge sheet was valid.3. Prosecution of Partners Without Impleading the Firm:The petitioner contended that the firm should be impleaded as an accused for the partners to be prosecuted. The court referred to Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act and noted that a partnership firm is not a juristic person. The court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Standard Chartered Bank, which dealt with corporate bodies, not partnership firms. The court found the petitioner's submission without merit.4. Validity of Selling Stolen Articles as an Offence under IPC:The petitioner argued that selling stolen articles is not an offence under IPC. The court held that this plea could be urged during the trial, which had already commenced with 25-30 witnesses examined. The court did not find this argument sufficient to quash the proceedings at this stage.5. Application of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code:The court reiterated the principles for exercising inherent powers under Section 482, as laid down in various Supreme Court decisions, including State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. The court found that none of the conditions for exercising inherent powers were met in the present case. The allegations against the petitioner were serious, involving a significant loss to the government, and there was prima facie evidence against him. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the case did not fall under any of the categories warranting the exercise of inherent powers.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the proceedings, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court held that the charges in the two charge sheets were different, the firm need not be impleaded for prosecuting the partners, and the plea regarding selling stolen articles could be addressed during the trial. The court also found no grounds for exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.