Paras Jain vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Paras Jain, sought to quash criminal proceedings, including a charge sheet and cognizance order, stemming from a case under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed the opposite party no. 2 purchased jewellery worth Rs. 7,51,910/- from his shop, with only Rs. 5,000/- paid, and he was merely demanding the balance. This was allegedly supported by his sale register. He admitted that the GST records showed only Rs. 11,000/- due, but attributed this discrepancy to an attempt to evade GST. The State and opposite party no. 2 contended that no jewellery was purchased by opposite party no. 2 from the applicant. Instead, the applicant purchased articles from opposite party no. 2, returned them, and then forged a voucher showing a sale of jewellery to opposite party no. 2 to demand money. They highlighted that the applicant's GST ledger showing only Rs. 11,000/- due contradicted his claim of a Rs. 7 lakh debt.

Held

The Court held that the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence. In this case, the informant's clear allegations of the applicant forging a bill for Rs. 7,46,910/- to demand money, coupled with the applicant's GST account book showing only Rs. 11,000/- due, established a prima facie case. The Court found that the applicant's submissions involved questions of fact and law that required determination by the trial court, not by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the applicant's conduct and the facts presented did not warrant quashing the proceedings. Therefore, the application lacked merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) and the material on record, when taken at face value, prima facie constitute an offence against the applicant, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that no prima facie case was made out against him, as the allegations were false and his version was supported by his sale register. He conceded that GST records showed a lower amount due but claimed this was for tax evasion. He contended that the forgery allegation was false and that the FIR and witness statements did not establish a prima facie case. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and opposite party no. 2 argued that a prima facie case was made out. They asserted that the applicant had forged a voucher to demand money after returning goods purchased from opposite party no. 2. They pointed to the discrepancy between the applicant's claimed debt and the amount shown in his GST ledger as evidence against him. They also noted that a previous complaint by the applicant with similar allegations had been dismissed.