Navneet Soni @ Pintu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Navneet Soni, sought to quash an FIR and subsequent charge sheet and cognizance order related to alleged financial irregularities in Jila Sahakari Bank, Branch Sankargarh/Kusmi. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging suspicious transactions from specific bank accounts. Audits revealed irregularities amounting to approximately ₹13.14 crores and later ₹26 crores, involving twelve accused who allegedly opened fake accounts and transferred Kisan Credit Card funds. The petitioner, a gold merchant operating M/s Jamuna Alankar Mandir, is accused of receiving approximately ₹1.8 crores between 2018 and 2022 from a co-accused bank employee, Ashok Soni, through NEFT transfers. The petitioner contended these were legitimate B2C transactions supported by GST invoices and bank records, while the bank's special audit noted a lack of supporting documents at the branch level for some transfers to Jamuna Alankar Mandir.

Held

The Court held that no case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for quashing the proceedings was made out. The Court reiterated that it is not required to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine the probative value of evidence at this stage. The sole criterion is whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court noted that large-scale financial fraud involving public money had been detected, and the transactions routed through the petitioner's firm were substantial and arose from accounts involved in irregularities. Whether these were genuine commercial transactions or part of a conspiracy to siphon funds, and whether the petitioner had knowledge of the illegal source, are questions of fact to be adjudicated during trial. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on GST invoices and banking records did not conclusively establish innocence at this stage, as these did not negate allegations of conspiracy. Economic offences involving public money are grave and should not be quashed at the threshold unless in the rarest of rare cases. The Court concluded that the charge sheet discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner, and continuation of proceedings is not an abuse of process. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were found to be distinguishable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet, when taken at face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashment under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that no offence is made out as the essential ingredients of the IPC sections are absent. They contended that all transactions were lawful B2C commercial transactions supported by GST invoices and banking records, and no loss was caused to the government or wrongful gain to the petitioner. They relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. for guiding principles on quashing proceedings. The petitioner also argued that the absence of vouchers at the bank branch was an internal issue and did not negate their business transactions. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State did not file a specific written response detailing their arguments, but the judgment reflects their stance through the court's analysis of the material on record, which indicated prima facie case against the petitioner.