TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing of the FIR, the Hon ble Supreme Court has settled the legal proposition in large number of judgments in one after the other. In the case of PRATIBHA RANI VERSUS SURAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER [ 1985 (3) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT ] it held that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. Further from the reading of the FIR in the instant case, the contents of which has to be accepted as true at this stage and the Court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the contents thereof. The application is dismissed. - Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1375 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy Cav Judgment For the Petitioner/s : M/s P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate, Girijish Kumar, Advocate For the State : M/s Md. Nadeem Seraj, GP 5, Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP 5 For the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the HDFC Bank operated the Bank locker without government authorization / permission and thus it was requested that an FIR be filed and suitable action be initiated. On the written complaint of the respondent no. 5 the FIR was registered, as stated above. It is submitted by Sri P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that from the contents of the First Information Report, an offence only under section 275A of the Income Tax Act ( IT Act in short) will be made out and no offence under any of the sections of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that so far as the offence under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, criminal breach of trust is defined under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code and the dishonest intention required therein has to be from the very inception. No such allegation having been made in the FIR, no offence under section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code nor section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. Learned senior counsel referring to the letter dated 5.10.2021 of the authorised officer being an order under section 132(3) of the IT Act, 1961 submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submitted that search and seizure was conducted on 5.10.2021 and order under section 132(3) of the IT Act and a prohibitory / restrain order under section 132(3) of the IT Act was imposed in the Bank locker no. 462 held in the name of Smt. Sunita Khemka in the HDFC Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna. The order under section 132(3) of the IT Act was duly received by Shri Deepak Kumar, Teller Banker Authoriser of the HDFC Bank whereby The Bank was directed to put stop operation on all the Bank lockers, Accounts and fixed deposits. It subsequently transpired that Smt. Sunita Khemka had operated Bank locker no. 462 on 9.11.2021 at 11.53 a.m. with the aid of HDFC Bank and the same was confirmed from the CCTV footage. Smt. Abha Sinha, Bank Manager in her statement accepted the fact of unlawful operation of Locker no. 462 and the same was also accepted by Sri Abhishek Kumar, Branch Operational Manager. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the statement of Bank officials recorded under section 131(1)(A) of the IT Act at the HDFC Bank, which has been brought on record as annexure to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5. With respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. Having gone through the materials on record, it transpires from the contents of the FIR that pursuant to search and seizure conducted on 5.2.2021, an order under section 132(3) of the I.T. Act was served by the Authorised Officer to the HDFC Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna to put a stop operation on the Bank accounts, fixed deposits and bank locker of the assessee. Inspite of the prohibitory order having been communicated to the Bank, the FIR discloses that the same was breached and Smt.Sunita Khemka operated the Bank locker no. 462 on 9.11.2021 at 11.53 a.m.. The said fact is validated from the statements of Bank officials, Smt Sunita Khemka herself as also from the CCTV footage. On quashing of the FIR, the Hon ble Supreme Court has settled the legal proposition in large number of judgments in one after the other. In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985)2 SCC 370] it held that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. In its judgment in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. What was significant was that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. Taking note of all the above judgments as also a number of other judgments, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (judgment dated 13.4.2021 in Criminal Appeal no. 330 of 2021) held that the Court cannot thwart an investigation into a cognizable offences which is the statutory right and duty of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
