Chhattisgarh HC: Infirmity in Cheque Return Memo Won’t Render Entire Trial u/s 138 of NI Act a Nullit  ||  Delhi HC: Lawyers have Great Responsibility towards Resolving Matrimonial Disputes  ||  Pat. HC: Mental Disorder for Divorce Must be Such that Spouse Can’t be Expected to Live with Other  ||  Delhi HC: Can Dispense Personal Hearing Only if Assessee's Rectification Application Is Allowed  ||  J&K HC: Fact that Civil Remedy is Available for Breach of Contract No Ground to Quash Cr. Proceeding  ||  SC: Cannot Grant Bail for Offence under Sec. 447 of Companies Act Without Fulfilling Twin Conditions  ||  Supreme Court: Can Pass Judgment on Admission Made Outside the Pleadings  ||  SC: All Proceedings Related to Land Allotment for Bom. HC's New Complex Must be Heard by Bombay HC  ||  NCLAT: No Requirement of Opportunity of Being Heard at Stage of Report Submission u/s 99 of IBC  ||  J&K High Court Notifies Video Conferencing (Nyaya Shruti) Rules, 2025    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved