Orissa High Court
Muralidhar Agarwal vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opp. … on 20 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3769 of 2024
Muralidhar Agarwal .... Petitioner
Mr.Asok
Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opp. Parties
& others Mr.Niranjan
Mahrana, ASC,
Vigilance
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 20.12.2024
02. 1. Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.
Niranjan Maharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite party-State
(Vigilance Department).
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has invoked
the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C., inter alia, praying for quashing of the
Charge Sheet No.42, dated 29.09.2014 filed by the
Vigilance Department for the alleged commission of
the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w
Page 1 of 8
Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "P.C. Act")/r/w
Sections 379/467/468/471/409/411/120-B of the
IPC.
3. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated
06.11.2015
passed by the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.53 of 2015, by
which the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack
has taken the cognizance of the offences as
mentioned in the preceding paragraph in T.R. Case
No.53 of 2015.
4. The opposite parties-Vigilance Department has
lodged the F.I.R. being Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case
No.25 of 2010 on the complaint of one Smt.
Shantilata Behera .
5. It is alleged that, Smt. Behera had purchased one
10 wheeler truck under the hypothecation/lease
agreement with Shriram Transport Finance Co.
Limited, which was registered with the Registering
Authority (M.V.), Cuttack with Registration No.OR-
05-AA-1869 (hereinafter referred as “Offending
Vehicle”). Since Smt. Shantilata Behera could not pay
the monthly installments of repayment of the vehicle
loan, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. took
possession of the offending vehicle and put it on
auction to recover the loan amount. One Sri Susanta
Kumar Bal purchased the offending vehicle in the
auction and thereafter sold the offending vehicle to
Page 2 of 8
one Sri Surendra Jain of Kolkata (West Bengal).
6. Sri Surendra Jain brought the offending vehicle
to Cuttack for the purpose of repair and
regularization of the papers of the vehicle at RTA,
Cuttack. Sri Jain stayed at Jasmine Hotel at Cuttack,
which was owned by Sri Prasant Kumar Patra
(Accused No.1). It is stated in the F.I.R. that, the
Accused No.1, in connivance with Sri Dhaneswar
Nayak (Accused No.2), who was posted as Traffic
Inspector, Office of the RTO, Cuttack, enticed Sri
Surendra Jain to get the repair work of the offending
vehicle done at one Chagala Garage at Sikharpur,
Cuttack. When the offending vehicle was taken to the
said garage, accused No.2 suddenly arrived there and
seized the offending vehicle under the charges of
non-payment of the statutory charges/taxes and on
the charge of driving the vehicle without requisite
documents and permits. Exploiting this situation,
Accused No.1, Mr. Patra struck a deal with Sri
Surendra Jain to purchase the offending vehicle for a
consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for which,
cheques were dishonoured on presentation. When Sri
Surendra Jain confronted with the Accused No.1
about dishonour of the cheques, Accused No.1 asked
him to come to Cuttack to take cash in lieu of the
cheques. Once, Sri Surendra Jain came to Cuttack,
he came to know that Accused No.1 was plying the
offending vehicle and when Sri Surendra Jain failed
Page 3 of 8
to receive any satisfactory response from the Accused
No.2 about plying of the offending vehicle, he
reported the matter to the Vigilance Department
leading to lodging of the F.I.R. by the opposite party-
Vigilance Department naming Accused No.1 and
Accused No.2 only in the F.I.R.
7. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance
Department. As against the present petitioner, in the
charge sheet, the following allegations are made:
“Investigation revealed that Hind Metals and
Industries (P) Ltd. is a company registered with
ROC, Cuttack. The Directors of the said
company are Sri Muralidhar Agarwal, S/o.
Late Badri Prasad Agarwal of Gurudwara
Road, Barbil. The other two directors of the
said company are Sri Mahesh Agarwal, S/o.
Late Badri Prasad Agarwal and Sri
Sabyasachi Pradhan of Talatelanga Bazar,
Cuttack. Investigation revealed that during the
month of March 2010 the company had
received a quantity of 38.150 M.T. of iron ore
fines from M/s. Rajgangpur Ispat Udyog
through truck No.OR-05-AA-1869 through a
forged transit pass No.A-024921 dt. 22.3.2010.
Investigation revealed that no such book being
transit pass no.A-024921 has been issued by
the Deputy Director Mines, Rourkela to M/s.
Rajgangpur Ispat Udyog. Further the
Handwriting expert also opined that the said
pass is a forged pass. The records of the
consignee procured the iron ore fines shows
only supply of 38.150 M.T. of iron ore fines.
The M.D. Sri Muralidhar Agarwal from the
forged T.P. was recovered could not give any
plausible explanation about receipt of iron ore
fines through forged T.P. and had exported
such illegally/stolen iron ore fines.”
Page 4 of 8
8. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.
Hind Metal and Industries Private Limited and
engaged in the business of trading and exporting of
the minerals.
9. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations,
the petitioner is sought to be tried the criminal
offences emanating from the FIR as referred to above.
10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner submitted that three petitions being
CRLMC No.3566 of 2016, CRLMC No.3114 of 2018
and CRLMC No.3157 of 2018 pertaining to different
accused persons, those who are exactly similarly
situated like the present petitioner, have been
disposed of by this Court vide common judgment
dated 20.06.2024 passed in the case of Md. Seraj
Yusha v. State of Orissa (Vigilance) & ors and
Batch.
11. In the said judgment of this Court, the facts and
law has been discussed elaborately. Mr. Mohanty,
learned Senior Advocate has relied upon paragraphs-
20 to 23 of the judgment in Md. Seraj Yusha ( supra),
which are quoted hereunder:
“20. The sum and substance of the contention of the
learned Counsels for the opposite parties is that, if
a crime is committed by any Partner or Member or
Director of a Firm/Company, they should not be
allowed to hide behind corporate veil rather which
is oppose to public policy, therefore, corporate veil
in such case is liable to be pierced.
Page 5 of 8
21. In principle the contentions raised by both the
parties are correct, however, in the instant case
that is not the test. The petitioners have invoked
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia
stating that no case is made out against the
petitioners even if the evidence collected and relied
upon by the investigating agency are taken on its
face value to be true. On the basis of the said test, I
have gone through the chargesheet and the
evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the
petitioners. The evidences so collected are
disjuncting the petitioners’ role in the commission of
the crime. The investigation is completely jumbled
up and not an iota of evidence is brought on record
to rope the petitioners in the present case.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, the case of the
petitioners is squarely covered by the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another
reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, wherein it is
held that if the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would
put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case. Therefore, in the
aforementioned circumstances subjecting the
petitioners to trial in the present case would be a
futile excise in the absence of any material
available on record against them.
22. In that view of the matter, subjecting the
petitioners to trial on the strength of the available
material would be a futile exercise on the part of
prosecution. Therefore, while exercising the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
I am inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
initiated by the prosecution. However, quashing of
the criminal prosecution against the petitioners on
the available material as of today shall not
preclude the learned Trial Court to invoke section
319 Cr.P.C in the event materials comes on record
against the petitioners during the course of trial.
23. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed
and the chargesheet No.42 dated 29.09.2014 filed
by the opposite parties under Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, r/w Sections
Page 6 of 8
379/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 409/411/120-B of IPC in
T.R. No.53 of 2015 pending before the Court of
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, which is
emanating from Vigilance Case No.25 dated
13.04.2010, under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in
all the three cases are quashed.”
12. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment, Mr.
Mohanty submitted that the case of the present
petitioner is directly covered by the aforementioned
judgment.
13. Mr. Maharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that
the role attributed to the accused in the present case
is different from the overt attributed to the other
accused. Therefore, the present petitioner cannot
derive the benefit of the judgment of this Court as
relied in Md. Seraj Yusha (supra). However, Mr.
Maharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department could not dispute the factual scenario
emanating from the record in so far as the present
petitioner is concerned.
14. I have perused the allegation made against the
petitioner and the materials form part of the charge
sheet. I have also carefully gone through the
judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2024 passed in
Md. Seraj Yusha (supra) vis-à-vis the facts of the
present case. Allegation made in the charge sheet
against the present petitioner can’t be
Page 7 of 8
distinguishable from the other accused in the case.
Hence, there cannot be a second opinion that the
case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgment of
this Court. Therefore, there is no point in taking a
different view than the view which has already been
taken by this court in case of the co-accused person.
15. Accordingly, the CRLMC deserves merit and is
allowed. As a sequitur, the Charge Sheet No.42, dated
29.09.2014 filed by the Vigilance Department qua the
present petitioner is quashed, besides quashing the
order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.53 of
2015.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 23-Dec-2024 09:36:57
Page 8 of 8
[ad_1]
Source link