Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (01 Aug 2018)

FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold itself without allowing the investigation to proceed

MANU/JK/0567/2018

Criminal

In present petition, the Petitioners crave the indulgence of present Court in quashing the FIR registered against them at Police Station. The complaint pertains to the misappropriation of rice & wheat stocks at PEG (Private Entrepreneur Guarantee) Store, Baramulla, valued at over 14 Crores.

The Petitioners have challenged the FIR, on the grounds that, the Petitioners are proprietors of the sole proprietorship concern against whom the impugned FIR has been registered by the CBI. The proprietorships concerns are not legal entities or juridical persons against whom prosecution can be launched. The proprietorship is doli incapax and thus can neither be prosecuted nor punished under any statute. The inference that can be drawn from the allegations contained in the FIR is that the alleged commission of the breach of trust and misappropriation has taken place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of State of Jammu and Kashmir, that is, in the State of Punjab. Such offences have no territorial nexus vis-à-vis the penal offences provided under Ranbir Penal Code and their prosecution cannot be countenanced within the State of J & K. The FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint directly transmitted by the Zonal Office Food Corporation of India, Noida, UP, in the absence of a valid sanction.

As per record, a huge amount of money spreading over 14.74 Crores has been misappropriated as a corollary to which the Food Corporation of India is said to have suffered loss in an equivalent amount of money. The Petitioners have challenged the vires of the FIR registered against them on various counts which can be decided and determined on the culmination of the investigation of the case also for who knows what will be the fate of the investigation of the case and in which direction it will land. The allegations levelled against the Petitioners and others including the officers/officials of the FCI as is palpable from the FIR appear to be serious in nature and the mandate of law justifies that the matter should be investigated into its entirety without aborting it midway. It is only after the conclusion of the investigation of the case that a definite opinion can be framed in light of the grounds agitated and urged by the Petitioners in this petition. It will be too early in the day to comment as to which offence is and which is not made out in the case.

The food grains are alleged to have been loaded in Scooters, Tractors, HGV and Motor Cycles. It provides the mode and manner in which the documents have been allegedly fudged and forged to obtain undue pecuniary gains. The investigation of the case cannot be scuttled, stalled and thwarted at this stage of the initial probe in the matter of the embezzlement of a huge amount of money. The FIR in a case like the present one cannot be quashed promptly without allowing the CBI to make an appropriate investigation of the case. The Supreme Court has in a catena of judicial pronouncements held that the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold itself without allowing the investigation to proceed. Petition dismissed.

Tags : FIR   QUASHING OF   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved