Shashank Chopda vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Shashank Chopda, sought to quash an FIR and subsequent charge sheets filed against him. The FIR alleged criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, abuse of official position, and corruption related to a tender floated by CGMSCL for medical equipment and reagents under the "Hamar Lab Scheme". The prosecution alleged that tender conditions were manipulated to favour Mokshit Corporation, leading to tender pooling and inflated prices. It was further alleged that purchase orders worth approximately Rs. 314 crores were issued without verifying actual requirements or infrastructure, resulting in reagents worth Rs. 161 crores expiring unused. The petitioner argued that the dispute was contractual and commercial, with pending arbitration, and that criminal proceedings were being used to avoid contractual liabilities. He highlighted that Mokshit Corporation had outstanding payments of Rs. 338 crores and had paid significant taxes, suggesting no wrongful gain.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the contractual nature of the dispute, Mokshit Corporation's bona fide conduct, and the alleged lack of wrongful gain involved disputed questions of fact. The Court found that the petitioner sought reliance on various communications and explanations which required appreciation of evidence during trial. The allegations of tender pooling and criminal conspiracy, based on circumstantial evidence like similarity in bid documents, also required evaluation at trial. The Court noted that while outstanding dues and financial difficulties could be defence material, they could not be assessed under Section 528 BNSS. The Court concluded that the material relied upon by the petitioner was not of an unimpeachable nature to demolish the prosecution case at the threshold. The allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie commission of offences requiring adjudication by the trial court. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, with a clarification that the observations were confined to the present petition and would not prejudice the petitioner during trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present FIR and charge sheets, alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and corruption in a government procurement process, disclose a prima facie case warranting continuation of criminal proceedings, or if they constitute an abuse of process by converting a contractual dispute into a criminal one? (Relates to Section 120B, Section 409 IPC, Section 7(c), Section 13(1)(a), Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 528 BNSS). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely contractual and commercial, with issues like tender conditions, procurement quantities, infrastructure availability, and payment obligations already pending before an arbitral forum. He argued that criminal proceedings were being used to pressure a contracting party and avoid liabilities, citing precedents where such conversions were quashed. He also asserted that Mokshit Corporation had not derived undue financial benefit, pointing to outstanding payments and substantial tax payments made. Furthermore, he claimed Mokshit Corporation had repeatedly alerted CGMSCL about infrastructure deficiencies, shifting the blame for reagent expiry to the authorities, and that the tender pooling allegation was based on a uniform format provided by CGMSCL. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State) argued that the allegations involved criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position, and financial irregularities in a government procurement process, disclosing a prima facie case. The Court did not record specific arguments from the respondent beyond the implication of their defence against the petitioner's claims.