TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me this Court in the case of ANIL RAI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR [ 2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT] has observed and held It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alcoveb is the licenced Firm having F.L. 2B licence, engaged in the business of beer etc. by purchasing the goods from the company, Respondent No. 5 - Sanjeet Jaiwal - original informant of FIR No. 260 of 2018, Manager of the company - M/s. Beehive Alcoweb. On 07.09.2018 at 7.56 p.m. Respondent No. 5 sent a demand order at 7.56 p.m. and on 11.09.2018 through e-mail for delivery of three trucks of beer to Respondent No. 4 - M/s. United Breweries Limited and transferred a total sum of Rs. 92,98,902/- to deliver two trucks in Lucknow and one in Varanasi. The Respondent No. 4 directed its transporter SICAL Logistics Limited Company to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to Respondent No. 5/the informant. That in furtherance of the same, M/s. SICAL Logistics Limited Company contacted another transport company, who in turn, hired two trucks vide truck registration numbers UP-32HN/3209 and UP-32FN/8048 for delivery of consignment of Respondent No. 5/informant to Lucknow after obtaining transfer permit FL-36 from Excise Department. The trucks were enabled with GPS systems as maintained by the Excise Department Track and Trace policy. 2.1. The consignment of beer was dispatched on 11.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Husainganj, District-Lucknow. 2.2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has quashed the entire criminal proceedings including the charge-sheet and the summoning order arising out of Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2018 PS - Husainganj, District - Lucknow). 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2018 PS - Husainganj, District - Lucknow), the State as well as the original informant have preferred the present appeals. 3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the Appellant - State of UP and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original informant. Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate have appeared on behalf of the original Accused. 4. Ms. Bhati, learned AS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yndicate operating with the connivance of the Accused persons. 4.8. It is submitted that the manner in which the trucks loaded with beer bottles went missing and the modus operandi adopted, in such a serious matter but the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings; that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.9. It is submitted that while quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has conducted a mini trial which as such is not permissible while exercising the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Appellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court in support of their above submissions and the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order. (i) Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC Online SC 1222 [paras 14, 15, 16, 18 22] (ii) CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923 (iii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 (iv) Neeharika Infrastructure vs. Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmant was with respect to the rebate and therefore with a mala fide intention, the FIR was lodged. That so far as the rebate is concerned, no allegation was made in the FIR. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings, as it was nothing but an abuse of process of law. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra); Indian Oil Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and others-reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736; Rajiv Thapar (supra) and Jetking Infotrain Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2015) 11 SCC 730, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 260 of 2018 including the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (See Pratima (supra); Thom (supra); Rajiv (supra) and Niharika (supra). 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Court has allowed the petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 7.2. It is also required to be noted that even the High Court itself has opined that the allegations are very serious and it requires further investigation and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct the investigation by CB-CID with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
