Naved Mirza vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Naved Mirza, proprietor of M/s Star Suppliers, is challenging a charge-sheet and criminal case initiated against him for alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner's firm was engaged in installing pisciculture cages for the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner argues his role was limited to installation, not pisciculture activities, and that he executed work orders diligently, deposited all statutory taxes including GST, and received payment only for executed work. He contends there's no evidence of misappropriation, forged bills, or excess payments. A preliminary departmental inquiry found no discrepancies attributable to him, yet an FIR was lodged after a significant delay. The petitioner claims the prosecution is based on conjecture and amounts to an abuse of process.

Held

The Court held that the present petition does not fall within any exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). The Court noted that the FIR was registered based on a certified inquiry report and directions from the Collector, Rajnandgaon, which alleged forged beneficiary documents leading to misappropriation of funds. The Court found that the petitioner's contentions, even when taken at face value, did not demonstrate that the criminal proceedings were wholly without basis. The Court referred to the legal position that jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and that ordinarily, courts do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences unless the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or are malicious, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order, as presented, did not meet this threshold for quashing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, based on a charge-sheet and cognizance order, are liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law, considering the petitioner's role as a contractor and the alleged lack of evidence of criminal intent or wrongdoing on his part? (Question of law and mixed fact and law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that his role was limited to installing cages as per work orders, and he was not involved in pisciculture activities. He argues that all payments were made after departmental verification, he deposited GST and other taxes, and there is no evidence of misappropriation or forged documents. He asserts that a preliminary departmental inquiry found no discrepancies attributable to him and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay. He further argues that the allegations, even if taken at face value, point to administrative lapses by government officials, not criminal acts by a contractor, and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. He relies on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Girish Babu v. State of Kerala. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and a final report/charge-sheet was filed, upon which the trial court has taken cognizance and is conducting the trial.