Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
1 MCRC-51136-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51136 of 2024
SURENDRA RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suryanarayana Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Bhanu
Neekhra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Lal Achyutendra Singh Baghel - Govt. Advocate for the State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51133 of 2024
SANJEEV KUMAR MEHTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suryanarayana Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Bhanu
Neekhra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Lal Achyutendra Singh Baghel - Govt. Advocate for the State.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51141 of 2024
SUSHIL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suryanarayana Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Bhanu
Neekhra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Lal Achyutendra Singh Baghel - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
2 MCRC-51136-2024
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three petitions.
2. The applicants have filed these petitions invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First
Information Report (for short FIR) registered against them vide Crime No.
305 of 2023 at Police Station Kohefiza, District Bhopal and its subsequent
proceedings pending before Eighteenth District and Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhopal vide S.T. No. 690 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
& 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicants are partners of
a firm namely “Rathore & Mehta Associates” (hereinafter referred to as the
Firm). The said firm was engaged in the business of selling of liquor (FMFL
& IMFL). In furtherance of the said business, the Firm participated in the
process of E-Tender of Composite Liquor Group, Lalghati, Bhopal. The
offer of the Firm was accepted and as per the liquor policy, the Firm was
required to deposit 10% as a security in the form of Bank Guarantee. The
Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,84,00,000/- was deposited with the office of Excise
on 10.4.2023. The said Bank Guarantee was issued by the Union Bank of
India, Kalimpong, Siligurhi, West Bengal. The said Bank Guarantee was
forwarded to the Union Bank of India, Arera Hills Bhopal and it was
informed by the said Branch that the said Bank Guarantee was not issued.
Thereafter, a decision was taken vide order dated 26.5.2023 passed by the
Collector, Bhopal to prosecute the present applicants. As a consequence
thereof, the impugned FIR has been registered against the present applicants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
3 MCRC-51136-2024
4 . Learned senior counsel for the applicants contends that the
applicants/partners of the Firm were approached by one Narayan Tripathi
with a proposal that he would make the Bank Guarantee available and in lieu
of such favour, he demanded 15% profit in the partnership Firm. Two
partners of the Firm namely Sanjeev Kumar Mehta (applicant in M.Cr.C.
No. 51133 of 2024) and Sushil Singh (applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 51141 of
2024) gave their Power of Attorney in favour of Surendra Rathore (applicant
in M.Cr.C. No. 51136 of 2024) and authorized him to take all the decisions
for the purposes of submission of the documents in respect of application for
renewal/E-tender. Later on, on 4.5.2023, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was executed and applicant Sanjeev Kumar Mehta transferred 15%
of the partnership to one Anand Tripathi (son of Narayan Tripathi). Narayan
Tripathi arranged the Bank Guarantee and the said Bank Guarantee, as per
the instructions of Narayan Tripathi was to be obtained from one R.P. Singh,
who was a resident of Delhi. Applicant Sushil Singh then went to Delhi and
obtained hard copy of the Bank Guarantee and the same was submitted with
the Excise Department on 10.4.2023.
5. It is further contended by learned senior counsel for the applicants
that the impugned FIR and its ensured proceedings are unsustainable,
inasmuch as the applicant was not at all aware that the Bank Guarantee was
forged or fabricated. The applicants had no intention to submit fake Bank
Guarantee with the respondent. The applicants are running their business for
last 30 years and even they themselves have been duped at the behest of
Narayan Tripathi, R.P. Singh as well as Anand Tripathi and, therefore, they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
4 MCRC-51136-2024
could not have been prosecuted on the aforesaid allegations. It is further
contended that in the present case the State has not suffered any monetary
loss, which is evident from perusal of order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure P-8
filed along with M.Cr.C. No. 51136 of 2024) passed by the Collector,
Bhopal. It is further contended that even when the applicants applied for
grant of bail before the Apex Court, an affidavit was filed by the State before
the Apex Court, which is contained in Annexure P-9 filed with M.Cr.C. No.
51136 of 2024. In the said affidavit, there is an admission by the State that
names of Narayan Tripathi, Anand Tripathi and R.P. Singh were also
included as accused in the case. It is further contended that there is another
affidavit at Page No. 129, which reflect that the said Bank Guarantee was
obtained from one Raj Mohammad and therefore, it is a case where none of
the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are attracted. Hence the impugned
FIR and its ensued proceedings be quashed. The counsel has placed reliance
on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajanlal & others – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Mariam Fasihuddin & another
Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & another – Criminal Appeal No. 335 of
2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2877 of 2021);
Mahmood Ali & others Vs. State of U.P. & others – Criminal Appeal No.
2341 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 12459 of 2022) and Vishal
Noble Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another – Criminal Appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2389 of 2023.
6 . Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petitions and
submitted that the grounds raised by the applicants in the present petitions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
5 MCRC-51136-2024
are subject matter of evidence and it is for the applicants to adduce the
evidence in their defence during course of trial. At this stage, no interference
is warranted in these petitions.
7 . Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8 . On perusal of record, it reflects that the Firm namely Rathore &
Mehta Associates participated in the E-Tender process and as per clause
10.2.5 of the liquor policy, it was the duty of the bidder to furnish 10% Bank
Guarantee towards security. In the present case, the Bank Guarantee
submitted by the applicants has been found to be fake upon its verification
by the Bank. As per the applicants, the Bank Guarantee was submitted by the
applicants themselves in the Excise Department. So far as Anand Tripathi,
Narayan Tripathi and R.P. Singh are concerned, they are not the persons who
deposited the Bank Guarantee nor were in the partnership Firm on the date
when Rathore & Mehta Associates participated in the E-Tender process and
even by the date of submission of the Bank Guarantee on 10.4.2023. The
aforesaid persons were not at all in the picture, as according to the applicants
own showing on 4.5.2023 Anand Tripathi was made partner of 15% profit in
the Firm. Thus, prima facie the applicants being successful bidder were
required to submit the Bank Guarantee. The Bank Guarantee which was
deposited by the applicant was found to be forged as per the intimation
received from the Union Bank of India, Bhopal Branch. Therefore, at this
stage the transaction between the applicants and Narayan Tripathi, Anand
Tripathi and R.P. Singh has no bearing on the FIR and the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
6 MCRC-51136-2024
instituted against the applicants. Prima facie the FIR and the charge-sheet
reflects the commission of offence by the applicants. As per the case of the
prosecution, there is forged Bank Guarantee of a huge amount of Rs.1,
84,00,000/-.
9 . It is settled that this Court in exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct mini trial as laid down by the Apex
Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Apex Court
held in paragraph 33 as under:
“33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue,
whether the High Court would be justified in passing an
interim order of stay of investigation and/or no coercive
steps to be adopted, during the pendency of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in
what circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or no coercive steps to be adopted during the
investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing
of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
7 MCRC-51136-2024
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed,
in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities and
one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
8 MCRC-51136-2024
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by
the police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law. After investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made
by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission
of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required
to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
9 MCRC-51136-2024
and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be
considered by the High Court while passing an interim
order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay
of investigation during the pendency of the quashing
petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an
interim order should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and
the entire evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain itself from
passing the interim order of not to arrest or no coercive
steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated
to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
before the competent court. The High Court shall not
and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the
investigation or till the investigation is completed
and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[Emphasis supplied]
10. In the aforesaid conspectus, in the present case prima facie the FIR and
the charge-sheet reflects the commission of offence by the applicants. Thus,
in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions.
This Court is not expected to conduct mini trial and take into consideration
the documents which are required to be produced by the applicants at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10249
10 MCRC-51136-2024
time of submission of their defence during course of trial.
11 . In view of the specific allegations against the applicants in the FIR,
the reliance on the aforementioned decisions is misplaced.
12. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 3/7/2025
6:22:59 PM