Court dismisses applications, finds FIR discloses cognizable offences. Allegations of misappropriation and more warrant investigation.

The court dismissed all applications, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting further investigation. The court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR, including misappropriation of funds and snatching of cash and documents, prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence. It rejected arguments of mala fides, personal vendetta, findings of the Enforcement Directorate, and delay in lodging the FIR. The court concluded that the interim order of no coercive steps and no filing of charge-sheet could not continue, advising the applicants to seek anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) No. 389/2020 discloses a cognizable offence warranting further investigation.
2. Whether the FIR should be quashed on the grounds of mala fides and personal vendetta.
3. Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the findings of the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects its credibility.
5. Whether the interim order of no coercive steps and no filing of charge-sheet should continue.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Cognizable Offence and Necessity of Investigation
The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not confer unlimited power to quash the FIR and should be exercised sparingly. The Supreme Court in cases like State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra has laid down parameters for quashing an FIR, emphasizing that the court should not delve into the merits of the allegations at the FIR stage and should allow the investigation to proceed if a cognizable offence is disclosed. The court noted that the allegations in the FIR, including the misappropriation of funds and the incident of snatching cash and documents, prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, warranting further investigation.

Issue 2: Mala Fides and Personal Vendetta
The applicants contended that the FIR was lodged out of mala fides and personal vendetta by Respondent No. 2, a Member of Parliament. However, the court held that if a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police authorities have a statutory duty to investigate, and the argument of vendetta becomes irrelevant. The court found that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences, and thus, the investigation should proceed.

Issue 3: Findings of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
The applicants argued that the findings of the Enforcement Directorate, which allegedly exonerated them and implicated Respondent No. 2, should lead to the quashing of the FIR. The court rejected this argument, stating that the ED's investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, operates in a different domain and does not cover the predicate offences mentioned in the FIR. The court emphasized that the ED's findings are not final and cannot form the sole basis for quashing the FIR, which requires independent investigation.

Issue 4: Delay in Lodging the FIR
The applicants argued that the delay in lodging the FIR regarding the incident of 7 July 2019 made the allegations improbable. The court noted that the delay was explained by the constitution of an Enquiry Committee and the threats made by the accused to the office bearers. The court held that the delay did not affect the necessity of investigation, especially given the serious nature of the allegations involving misappropriation of public funds.

Issue 5: Interim Order of No Coercive Steps and No Filing of Charge-Sheet
The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which caution against routinely granting interim orders of no coercive steps during the pendency of a quashing petition. The court concluded that since the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and further investigation was necessary, the interim order of no coercive steps and no filing of charge-sheet could not be continued. The applicants were advised to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the applications, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring further investigation. The court also clarified that the observations made were solely for determining the necessity of investigation and did not affect the merits of the case.

---