~7E ^-^ n^^^^ s ^i^yrf'f^.^ IIN^I.E ^t^^" ^g s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Cr.) No. 3 ^S OF Q-0/^ PETITIONER Subhash Sahu, S/o. R. L. Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o. Quarter No. 297, Type -III, Bacheli, Police Station Bacheli, Distt. Dantewada, (C. G.) VER S U S RESPONDENTS ^ ^^ .^^> c^ ^^••""' ~^" : 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C. G.) 2) Anuj Patel, S/o. Nattu Bhai Patel, agedabout 35 years, Manager Operation, Anand Rathi Securities' Limited, R/o. Rajdhani Vihar, 1-30, Saddu, P. S. Mowa, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 ^TT^T ^T f<^i4) H^T 3?T^T ^iqra- ^NK *11*<CTI 9b*ll<^ l^ T^T ^ii^!<n<(i, ^ti1<H^i<o, [®i<ni<H^<, ^'5'@:,I°^ "F W^ 200 3TI^?T VT^ ( ^f^<sl<^) ^^TW^fi^ 3?T^T Heard Shri Shrawan A(fe Shri Sushll Dubey, Govt. Advo4 The petitioner herein information Report (Annexure Anuj Patel registered as crime' Station, Raipur, for offence ^ indian Penal Code and is ais<t initiated on the bssis'of tiie said The respondent No.2 ha^ on the aiiegation that the pet| making saie and purchase'of'i company on their oral" instruct| April' 2007 to October 2007, th| behaif of 'the company's cil^ Juneja, 'Rajshri Verma,. Rajeshj Priya Badlanj, .AniS Verma, Ghanshyam Das Tapadia, Su| thelrorai instructions and consf defrauded the company, but caused financlai ioss to the sail ohl^tci<flv1 ^TTH^yf ^ fe^ iFai-^K ^S7fW3:f?^T irawal, counse! for the petltioner and ate for the State. is seeking quashment of the First - P/1) jodged by the respondent No/2 No.28/2008 with the Goie Bazar Poiice der'Sections 408, 420 and 427 ofthe chaiienging the crjminai proceedings .FIR. lodged the subject FIR on 23-1-200.8 tloner 'was entrusted with the duty of shares on behaSf of the clients "ot' the ons. However, during the perlod from petitloner entered into transaction on nts nameiy; Arprta Tiwari, Jasuja, SarajJasuja, Pan/ati KiinapaSli, Dabe; Arun Vurarka, Ttitra Sinah and Susmit Sheel wlthout .ent. • Thus; the Detitioner hss not oniy the said persons and-'has alsp' j persons. 11 has als<^ been mentioned '/ ^' .^^ XI-HG—78 ^TT^T'^Tt^Tte ^^ ^I^W^^ o ^. ^ '3'°^ ^i'MKrt'M, ^ti1^4i<o, f«i<ni'yy,< *11*ICflT ^Wc|» "^ 200 3TI^T TT5T5F ( ^clltl<sl<^f) ^Tl^T "^ft^T ^iT^T "L^ In the FiR that the persons purchase and saie mad'e by t persons named in the FIR have Rs.44,40,813/-. The.. FIR furthi accepted his guilt on a non-Judici i.nformer has also'produced The sald documents .inciude thi ciients whose accounts have be< issued by the said: persons to •agalnstthem. Shri AgrawaS, learned coui urged that the. F1R and the Investjgation do not reveal a offence are • not avaiiable proceedings. in ihe opinion of thls Cour •vv'eil as the statement of wltnes^ f^ere never informed about the illegai- tj-ae petitioner and the company/the' Isuffered financiaS loss to the tune of |r records that the petitioner has ;i|! stamp paper of Rs.100/-,, The first docL^Tients at the tlme of lodging the FSR. (ist of accounts and the names ot |n wrengiy transacted and the Setters cornpany alieging fraud committed thle ^''\§tatlon in'course of investigatio the petltioner. • ; ' ' [cn^ili ^!^<nf ^ fe^ <F3i<^i< '^3tRma^?T appearing for the petitloner, h-as evidence coitected jn course. of prli^a facle and the ingredients'of ^s as to permit co.ntinuation "of,f • 1 on a reading of FiR, documents as &s recorded by the concerned Police i reveals a prima agalnst XI-HC—78 T '755T ^|<4|(n^, ^tli-H^Ko, [®1<YII,<-11|,< *fl*)^fT ^»<fT^» h^» ^ 3??^T ^T'f^TN? ) ^TSTT 3TI^T ^^lNi' 1 A. \.. ^- "^ 200 3TI^?T TT^7 (liclt^<i^) ^CTW^it^^?^? ^ <=M^f<vi<fli '^R^yf ^f fe^t <P»i<^i< ^3tRFT^T^T it .Is the settied law that criminai proceedings in a cas forgery have been made, Coi compiaint do not disciose the c< Sn the matter of Mahes ancS Another 4 SCC ^ y^hiJe. considering such prayei quashing of FIR or charge $heet or a where the ailegations'of fraud and rt can quash charge sheet; If FIR or )-mmSssion of offence. li Chaudharv v. ot Rajasthan 39}, the Supreme Court observed that in the petition High Courl is'not to embark upon appreciation of e^idence but to consjder oniy material on record as a vifhole. to consider the'FSR or the compjaint petltio! The ratio iaid . down. Chaud'hary (supra) is squarel-j case.-.The FIR, other docume commission -of offence agalnst For the reasons' -motion and is accordingiy dlsmissed at |as to whether the allegations made in 1 fu!fl!J the ingredients of the offence. t»y the Supreme Court in Mati'ssh applicabie to the facts of the present |its and evidence prima fsciQ, disciose |he petitioner. 'sd hereinabove, the writ petltion falis the admission staae itself. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge