Tarak Ghosh vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, partners of M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, sought to quash an FIR registered on 26.02.2026 at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund. The FIR was based on information that two trucks carrying sponge iron were found in suspicious circumstances. Drivers produced invoices from M/s Jai Bhole Ispat to M/s Shri Bajrang Bali Enterprises, but allegedly failed to produce weighment slips and proper e-way bill details. Drivers allegedly disclosed that one Ranjit Singh, in connivance with M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, prepared forged invoices for the sale of the material. The petitioners are implicated on allegations of preparing forged invoices. The total value of the sponge iron was approximately Rs. 50,61,250/-. The petitioners claim their firm is legitimate, files returns, and the transaction was genuine, supported by valid documents and advance payment. They were not named in the FIR and have no connection with the trucks or drivers.

Held

The Court held that no case is made out for interference at this stage. The admitted facts indicate allegations of involvement in illegal transportation of sponge iron. While the FIR was initially registered against the drivers, their disclosures implicated the present petitioners. The Court found that contentions of false implication and other factual disputes require appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding seeking quashment of an FIR. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, emphasizing that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine evidence at this stage. It is only required to ascertain if the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offense. Since the investigation is in progress and the petitioners have been granted bail, interference would stifle a legitimate prosecution. The issues raised by the petitioners are matters to be considered during the trial. Therefore, the petitions failed to make out a case for interference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Sections 3(5), 316(4), 317(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, warranting quashing of the criminal proceedings. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that M/s Jai Bhole Ispat is a registered firm conducting legitimate business, supported by valid invoices, e-way bills, stock records, and banking transactions, including an advance payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. They contended that there is no legally admissible material connecting them to the alleged offense, and they were implicated solely on vague allegations and disclosure statements of co-accused. They asserted that the ingredients of the offense are not disclosed and there is no complaint, making the continuation of proceedings an abuse of process. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that there is sufficient material on record prima facie constituting an offense. They stated that the sponge iron being illegally transported was intercepted, an FIR was registered, and the matter is under investigation. They also noted that the petitioners have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail, and the petitions should be dismissed as the investigation is ongoing.