2023 (4) TMI 1255 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies quashing FIR in construction project case, stresses caution in such matters

Shailendra Kant, Shiv Dixit, Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Vinayak Gaur, Ullas Bhattacharya, Pradeep Kumar Gupta Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Director General of Police, Bihar, Principal Secretary, Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bihar, Officer-In-Charge, Kudhani Police Station, Dhani Singh,

The High Court dismissed the application for quashing the F.I.R. alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to ... Application filed for quashing the F.I.R - accused persons started blackmailing M/S Rawat Associates JV and started asking for money on the pretext of encroachment removal and compensating farmers - HELD THAT:- This Court will exercise the powers under Section 482 for quashing the F.I.R. very rarely if a case is made out for quashing. No good ground for quashing the F.I.R. is made out, though the learned senior counsel had tried to submit that the prosecution was malicious. This application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the Investigating Officer as earlier directed on 3rd April, 2023 and if, the petitioners are aggrieved by the outcome of the investigation, the petitioners have all the liberty to take steps in law for redressal of his grievances. It is expected that the investigation is concluded expeditiously by the Investigating Agency. This Court is not giving any time frame for concluding the investigation as the matter relates to commercial transactions and it may take some time for investigation. Issues involved: Application for quashing the F.I.R. of a case involving allegations under Sections 384/386, 406, 420, 436, 511, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Summary:Allegations and Background:The case involved allegations against accused persons who were involved in blackmailing, cheating, and extortion related to a construction project on NH-77 in Bihar. The accused persons allegedly demanded money from a construction company under various pretexts, leading to a halt in the company's work and financial losses. They were also accused of threatening the informant and engaging in illegal activities such as setting camps and machinery on fire.Arguments and Counterarguments:The petitioners sought to quash the F.I.R. based on the argument that the prosecution was malicious. However, the respondents opposed the quashing, citing a relevant case law to support their position.Legal Analysis and Decision:The court considered the submissions of both parties and emphasized that the power to quash an F.I.R. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Referring to guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the court highlighted that courts should not interfere with police investigations into cognizable offenses unless no offense is disclosed in the F.I.R. The court dismissed the application for quashing the F.I.R., allowing the investigation to proceed. The interim protection granted to the petitioners was also vacated. The court emphasized that any observations made in the application were tentative and would not affect the case's merit during the investigation.