Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Subbayan Nagarajan vs . State Of Meghalaya Represented on 9 April, 2025
2025:MLHC:288
Serial No.01 & 2
Supple List 1
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No. 60 of 2024 Date of Hearing: 25.03.2025
Crl. Petn. No. 61 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025
In Crl. Petn. No. 60 of 2024
Shri. Subbayan Nagarajan Vs. State of Meghalaya represented
S/o Late Shri Karuppya by Chief Secretary, Government
Nagarajan R/o. 5th Floor, of Meghalaya.
26 Lake Road, Charu Chandra
College, Lake Road,
Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata,
West Bengal - 700029
::::PETITIONER. ::::RESPONDENT.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. P. Mahanta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M. Lyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA.
In Crl. Petn. No.61 of 2024
Shri. Martin Vs. State of Meghalaya represented
S/o Shri Santiago, by Chief Secretary, Government
R/o.135/1, Thiruvaluvar Street, of Meghalaya.
GN Mills Post, Vellakinar Pirivu,
Page 1 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
Coimbatore North, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu- 641029
::::PETITIONER. ::::RESPONDENT.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. R. M. Deka, Adv.
Mr. N. Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
(JUDGMENT & ORDER )
This set of two criminal petitions has been filed challenging the FIR No.
0248/2023 dated 11-09-2023 by raising common ground and identical
prayers have been made in both the petitions. Hence, both the criminal
petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl. Petn. No. 61 of 2024. Mr. S. P. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Crl. Petn. No. 60 of 2024 has adopted the submissions made
by the learned Senior Counsel in Crl. Petn. No. 61 of 2024. Also heardPage 2 of 11
2025:MLHC:288Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E. R. Chyne, learned
GA, appearing for the State-respondent in both the cases.
2. The petitioners in both the criminal petitions are engaged in lottery
business of distribution, marketing and sale of state organized lotteries of
the State of Sikkim and Nagaland in the State of Meghalaya.
3. On 11-09-2023, an FIR was registered by the Sadar Police Station,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong against the petitioners at the instance
of the Director of Meghalaya State lottery vide FIR No. 0248/2023 under
Section 406/420/426/500/506/120B/ 34 IPC. The facts stated in the FIR
reveal that M/s. Aspirestar Entertainment Networks Private Limited,
Chennai and M/s. Woodchip Gaming Private Limited, Tezpur were
appointed as distributors to conduct marketing and sale of all kinds of
lottery schemes (online and paper lotteries) on behalf of the State of
Meghalaya under the relevant provisions of Meghalaya Lottery
(Regulation) Rules, 2019 by agreements dated 16-09-2022 and 31-08-
2022 respectively. The information regarding the appointment of the
distributors was also communicated to the Directorate of State Lotteries
in various States. Subsequently, a lottery draw scheme was formulated
by the State of Meghalaya for conducting lottery draw and the first draw
was held on 30-08-2023 under the name ‘Singham Wednesday Weekly
Lottery’. The allegations against the petitioners in the FIR are that they
have conspired together and indulged in illegal activities of criminally
intimidating, threatening, coercing and causing undue influence on the
stockist and sub-stockist and others in order to destroy the competition
since the petitioners are practicing monopoly in the field of lottery. The
petitioners have been unlawfully preventing the official distribution and
Page 3 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
business of the Meghalaya State Lotteries continuously through various
illegal means of criminally threatening and also by manipulating stockist
with false and defamatory information to curtail the distribution of the
Meghalaya State Lottery at Police Bazar, Shillong and other parts of
Meghalaya and other States viz., West Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra etc.
The FIR also alleged that the petitioners together with henchmen and
gangster gave continuous and serious threat to the stockist, sub-stockist
and others preventing them from carrying out the business with the
Meghalaya State Lottery causing huge loss to the State, approximately to
the tune of Rs.1500 crores and the loss caused was diverted to the
income of the company owned by the petitioners. Further, it was alleged
that the petitioners were strenuously spreading defamatory and false
information in person and also through electronic mode against the
lottery business of Meghalaya State lottery with the intention to cause
fear among the stockist and others in order to gain undue advantage.
The illegal activities of the petitioners prevented the stockist from
carrying out lottery business with the State of Meghalaya. Hence, a
request was made to register a case against the petitioners and to conduct
investigation and for taking appropriate action. The said FIR was
registered and recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC by the police and as per
the recorded version, the date of information was 11-09-2023 and the
date of occurrence was 28-03-2022, Monday.
4. The petitioners initially did not have any information of the
lodging of the FIR against them. Recently, after coming to know about
the FIR, the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing the same.
Page 4 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
5. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the
allegations made in the FIR are absurd and highly improbable given that
the alleged date of occurrence which was stated to be on 28-03-2022;
whereas the distributors named in the FIR came to be appointed only on
16-09-2022 and 31-08-2022. He submits that the allegations made in the
FIR, even if are accepted at their face value and entirety, do not make
out any offence against the petitioners. He submits that the allegations
are inherently improbable basing on which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the petitioners. He submits that the FIR has been lodged at the
instance of the business rivals of the petitioners as there exist a stiff
competition in the field of lottery business. He submits that the
allegation of approximate loss of Rs.1500 crores made in the FIR is out
and out false as the total turnover in case of hundred per cent sale of
Meghalaya Lotteries w.e.f. the date of first draw till the date of filing of
the FIR could have been Rs.57,19,31,360/-. Drawing attention of this
Court to the various sections of law under which the FIR has been
registered, the learned Senior Counsel submits that none of the
ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property, mischief, defamation and
criminal intimation is made out against the petitioners. He submits that
the allegations made in the FIR is entirely vague as there is no disclosure
of the date, time and place of alleged commission of any offence by the
petitioners. He submits that the FIR is aimed at initiation of frivolous
and vexatious proceeding against the petitioners in order to cause harm
and loss to their reputation and business and prays for quashing of the
Page 5 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
impugned FIR dated 11-09-2023. In support of his submission, the
learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of State of
Haryana and Others vs Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Indian Oil Coron. Vs NEPC India Ltd and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736;
Mahmood Ali and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023)
15 SCC 488; Judgment and order dated 02/02/2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.;
Rajiv Thapar and Others vs Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330;
Prof. RK Vijayasarathy and Another vs Sudha Seetharam and Another,
(2019) 16 SCC 739; King Emperor vs Moti Lal and Another, Allahabad
Series Revisional Criminal vol.XXIV Page 155; Subramanian Swamy vs
Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, Manik Taneja and Another vs State of
Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423; Madhushree Datta vs State
of Karnataka and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine 165; B.R Enterprises vs
State of UP and others, (1999) 9 SCC 700 and State of Maharashtra and
Anr vs State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (2003) 2 Gauhati Law
Reports 195.
6. Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG for the State-respondent, submits
that the power of quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. He submits that the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR can only be
ascertained after conducting a proper investigation and it would not be
proper for this Court to scuttle the investigation at this stage. He submits
that whether the State has suffered a financial loss or not can only be
revealed after the investigation is complete in the matter. He submits
that the investigation of the case is at initial stage and the matter has
Page 6 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
been handed over recently to the State CID in the month of November,
2024 for a detailed investigation. He submits that this is not a fit case
where the inherent power of this Court be exercised for quashing the
FIR. He supported his contentions by placing reliance on the decision of
State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajan Lal and Others (supra).
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone
through the materials on record, the only question that falls for
consideration of this Court is whether the allegations made in the FIR
No. 0248/2023 dated 11-09-2023 makes disclosure of any cognizable
offence justifying initiation of investigation in the matter by police.
8. Perusal of the impugned FIR recorded u/S 154 Cr.PC reveals that
the date of alleged occurrence was on 28-03-2022 and the date of
information was 11-09-2023. The contents of the FIR further reveals
that one M/s. Aspirestar Entertainment Networks Private Limited,
Chennai and M/s. Woodchip Gaming Private Limited, Tezpur were
appointed as distributors for marketing and sale of State lotteries on 16-
09-2022 and 31-08-2022 respectively after execution of the related
agreements. The aforesaid uncontroverted facts make it amply clear that
on the date of the alleged offence, the distributors named in the FIR were
not even appointed as the distributors for the Meghalaya State Lottery.
In absence of distributor, there could not have been any stockist or sub-
stockist for the State lotteries on the date of alleged occurrence of
offence. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR are apparently absurd
and inherently improbable.
9. It is stated in the impugned FIR that the first draw under the name
‘Singham Wednesday Weekly Lottery’ was held on 30-08-2023 and the
Page 7 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
FIR was registered on 11-09-2023 i.e. after 11 days of the first draw. A
detailed calculation of the overall turnover in case of total sale of
Meghalaya Lotteries based on the State Government Notification No.
ERTS(SL)3/2023/35 dated 23-08-2023 is provided in the petitions
showing the maximum possible turnover as Rs.57,19,31,360/-. The
calculation is not disputed by the State-respondent. Thus, the allegation
of approximate loss of Rs.1500 crores made in the impugned FIR, is
nothing but outcome of a figment of imagination having no bearing with
the real or objective existence and, therefore, inherently improbable.
10. There is no material to prima facie satisfy the ingredients of
offence under Sections 406, 420,426, 500 and 506 IPC. Even if the
allegations made in the impugned FIR is taken in their face value, none
of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence are culled out. The
learned AAG appearing for the respondents did not specifically argue on
the ingredients of the offences alleged. To attract the offence of criminal
breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, it is mandatory to allege that the
accused was entrusted with property or dominion over it and the accused
must have misappropriated the property or disposed of that property in
violation of such trust. It is not the case of the respondent in the present
case that the petitioners were entrusted with any property and they have
dishonestly misappropriated the property. The condition necessary for
an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC is that there was
dishonest inducement by the accused. No act on part of the petitioners
has been alleged in the impugned FIR that discloses an intention on the
part of the petitioners to induce the delivery of any property to the
petitioners or to any other person. There is thus nothing on the face of
Page 8 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
the FIR to indicate that the petitioners dishonestly induced any person to
deliver any property to them. The ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the FIR and
consequently, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
Furthermore, to maintain an FIR or complaint on the allegation of
mischief under Section 426 IPC, there must be an accusation of causing
destruction of some property or any change in it or in its situation
resulting in destruction or diminish its value or utility, or affect it
injuriously. In the FIR filed by the Director of Meghalaya State Lottery,
there is no whisper of any accusation of destruction of any property or
any change in its situation by the petitioners. Insofar as, Section 500 IPC
is concerned, the decision of Subramanian Swamy (supra) makes it clear
that no FIR for defamation can be registered nor can any direction be
issued u/S 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of FIR in view of Section 199
Cr.PC. In addition, the impugned FIR indicates that no particulars are
given as to the persons threatened/coerced, the place or time of the
occurrence. There is no disclosure of the nature of threat made by the
petitioners. Without the said details and particulars, it is apparent that
the allegation of threat has been made without any basis and thus, it
would be improper to launch any investigation into the allegation u/S
506 IPC. In absence of any of the ingredients of the substantive
offences, the offence under Sections 120B and 34 IPC cannot be
invoked. Thus, the entire FIR filed by the respondent appears to be
frivolous and vexatious.
11. Apart from the above, it appears that the impugned FIR was filed
and registered on 11-09-2023 after lapse of one and half year from the
Page 9 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
date of alleged occurrence on 28-03-2022. The submission made by the
learned AAG reveals that the investigation of the case was handed over
to the State CID only in the month of 2024 i.e. after more than one year
of the registration of the FIR. The materials on record show that the
investigating authority has not taken any effective steps to advance the
investigation. No explanation has been offered to explain the delay of
more than one year in initiating the investigation. Thus, it is clear that
the investigating authority has no real intention to investigate the matter.
Delay in investigation leads to prejudice and injustice to the accused and
can also be a valid reason for the Court to consider quashing of the FIR.
In the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the continuation of the
investigation would be an abuse of the process of law causing injustice
to the petitioners.
12. The authorities cited by the learned Senior Counsel in support of
his case, though relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, are
not discussed in detail in view of the discussions and observations made
above.
13. For what has been discussed above, these Criminal Petitions
succeed. Resultantly, the Sadar Police Station FIR No. 0248/2023 dated
11-09-2023 stands quashed.
14. The Criminal Petitions are allowed.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
Page 10 of 11
2025:MLHC:288
09.04.2025
“Biswarup-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 11 of 11
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.04.10 06:40:32 IST
[ad_1]
Source link