Brief Facts
- The Appellant-Complainant had filed a complaint u/s 156(3), CrPC, 1973, against M/s SS Infrastructure Co. and its partners, alleging that they had committed offenses u/s 384, 389, 406, and 420 r/w Sec. 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Appellant-Complainant had filed a complaint u/s 156(3), CrPC, 1973, against M/s SS Infrastructure Co. and its partners, alleging that they had committed offenses u/s 384, 389, 406, and 420 r/w Sec. 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the anticipatory bail application of one of the respondents, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations. However, the High Court later quashed the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings, citing insufficient evidence presented by the investigation agency.
- The High Court concluded that the Appellant herein was involved in forgery and fabrication of documents and the Respondent No 2 (Santosh Kumar Choudha) has no complicity in the alleged offence.
Issues
- Whether Sec. 482, CrPC conferred power on the High Court to quash the summoning order as well as the criminal proceedings?
- Whether the beneficiary of a forged document can claim exoneration on the ground of not being involved in forgery of the document?
Held
- The Apex Court quashed the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for proceeding with the trial in accordance with the Law. It was observed that the Respondent No. 2 was the beneficiary of the contract awarded on the basis of forged document and has also received money from the Government under the contract. Thus, the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence was found to be prima facie made out.
- The High Court ought to have considered the complicity of the accused in case of forgery, which will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process i.e. by conducting the trial on the aspect of forgery. The summons order was only at an initial stage and at such a nascent stage, the High Court ought not to have recorded the finding on the aspect of forgery.
- Admittedly the respondents are the beneficiaries and merely because the appellant was an equal mischief player and/or a person having criminal antecedents at his credit by itself will not absolve the respondents from the criminal liability as alleged against them. Least to say, “Two wrongs do not make a right”.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 19, 20, 22