Akhilesh Mehta vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The issues raised by the petitioner, such as the discrepancy in amounts, the delay in registration, the nature of the documents as forged, and the petitioner's role and intent, were considered disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. These matters, the Court stated, cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering a petition to quash an FIR. The Court noted that civil and criminal proceedings can operate simultaneously and that interim orders in civil proceedings do not preclude criminal investigation. The Court emphasized that it is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or determine the probable defence of the accused at this stage. The allegations were not deemed absurd, inherently improbable, or legally untenable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the present petition and would not prejudice the petitioner in future proceedings, including challenging a charge-sheet, which would be considered on its own merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Akhilesh Mehta, proprietor of M/s Vishwakusum Infratech Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on January 22, 2025. The FIR alleged the submission and use of forged bitumen bills by road contractors, including the petitioner's firm, in connection with road construction works under the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (MPRRDA) between 2012 and 2022. The EOW received a complaint on February 3, 2023, alleging irregularities. Verification suggested that while some bills were genuine, those submitted by the petitioner's firm were allegedly forged, leading to payments of Rs. 12,07,13,583/- based on 45 allegedly fake invoices for various road packages. The petitioner's firm had allegedly obtained payments from MPRRDA by submitting these fake invoices, causing wrongful loss to the state.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR, alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, discloses the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation, considering the petitioner's contention that the allegations arise from contractual disputes and lack essential criminal ingredients like dishonest intention, deception, and wrongful loss (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without proper verification, citing a discrepancy between the total alleged forged amount and the amounts attributed to specific packages. They argued that the dispute pertained to contractual obligations, not criminal conduct, as the road works were executed, inspected, and certified by authorities. The petitioner asserted that there was no dishonest intention, no specific allegation of fabrication by him, and that ordinary invoices, even if disputed, do not constitute valuable security under Section 467 IPC. They also argued that Section 468 IPC is unsustainable without forgery and Section 471 IPC requires proof of fraudulent use of a forged document, which is not alleged. The petitioner further highlighted that GST-registered vendors' invoices were reflected in GST records, negating the fabrication claim, and payments were based on work execution, not just invoices. They also pointed to prior writ petitions challenging recovery proceedings and a significant delay in FIR registration as grounds for quashing. Revenue's arguments: The State, through the EOW, argued that the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation. They contended that the petitioner's arguments involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be determined at the stage of quashing the FIR. The interim orders in civil proceedings were deemed not to adjudicate criminal liability, and discrepancies or delays do not automatically warrant quashing the FIR at this preliminary stage.