P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Bhaskar Hari Tripathy Vs. State of Odisha - (High Court of Orissa) (19 Feb 2018)

A cognizance can be quashed only when uncontroverted allegations made in F.I.R or complaint do not disclose commission of any offence

MANU/OR/0095/2018

Criminal

Present is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding wherein the Petitioner is an accused charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468/471/120-B, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Cognizance for the said offences has been taken by the learned trial Court against the Petitioner and two other co-accused persons.

The position of law is well settled that, a cognizance can be quashed in a case of the present nature only when the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. In the instant case, undisputedly, the present Petitioner was on duty at the relevant time, when an e-way bill was prepared in a computer and it is also not disputed that the User I.D. of the Petitioner was utilized for the said purpose.

As it was submitted further on behalf of the State, Vigilance, had there been physical verification of the vehicle along with its documents, it could have been found out that, the vehicle was trying to evade tax by preparing a forged e-way bill in respect of an earlier Check Gate. Hence, it could not be said that, there is no loss to the State Exchequer. The plea taken by the Petitioner that, his User I.D. might have been mis-utilized during his short absence for attending call of nature, etc. cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of cognizance as per the settled position of law. In view of the allegations as made and the materials as found out in course of investigation, especially the alleged non-following of the procedure while issuing e-way bill, it cannot be said that, there is absolutely no case against the present Petitioner so as to quash the order of cognizance. Accordingly, there is no merit in instant application and accordingly it stands rejected.

Tags : COGNIZANCE   QUASHING OF   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved