Dinesh Chandra Jha, aged about 67 years, son of Late Surya Narain Jha, resident of Flat No.6A, Diamond City, South Tower IV, 58, M.G. Road, P.O. & P.S. Paschim Putiari, District Kolkata-700041 (West Bengal).

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate

C.A.V. on 11.07.2025 Pronounced on 25.07.2025

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 passed in R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Factual Matrix

2. The accused persons (public servants) in conspiracy with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing (China) and its Indian agent cheated M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad during the period 2009 to 2016 by issuing supply order for two Road Header 1 2025:JHHC:20748 Machines for use in coal mining activities and making payment to the said company as well as accepting the said Machines which were not as per the technical specification, due to which, both the machines broke down / remained unutilized, resulting wrongful loss of Rs. 11.60 crores (approx.) to BCCL.

Against the specification of Road Header Machines of 1.6 M, the said company supplied machines with overall height much more than specified in the NIT and supply order.

Both the machines were not accepted by the BCCL, W.J. Area, Moonidih, Dhanbad as they were not as per specification, but still the accused persons accepted the machines and made 80% payment and they tried to justify the said illegal procurement to reuse the rejected machines instead of insisting the said firm to replace or modify the machines at their cost. It was known to the accused persons that the height of machines was much higher than the available seam of coal and as such there was no way the machines could have been put to any productive use.

Accused persons failed to recommend any action against the said company or its Indian agent, who had supplied the machines, which were not as per the supply order and released 80% payment.

2025:JHHC:20748 The Road Header Machines broke down since November, 2015 and another was with effect from 03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial. Thus, the accused-public servants of BCCL, firm and others cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 11.60 crores (approx) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

The Director, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi vide order No. 015/COL/051-337020 dated 17.02.2017 in exercises of powers conferred under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the C.V.C. Act, 2003 had directed the CBI to conduct an investigation into the manner of acquisition of equipment, whose specifications were altogether different from the tendered one, non-returning of such inappropriate machinery, making of payment even though the machinery delivered was not the one ordered for and other connected issues including the role of the officers, who dealt with the issue, foreign supplier, their Indian agent and others involved.

Accordingly, a first information report being R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D was registered on 22.11.2017 was instituted against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Accordingly, the investigation in the said case has been completed and charge-sheet dated 22.09.2021 has been submitted against the accused persons including the 3 2025:JHHC:20748 present petitioner under Sections 120-B , 420 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Cognizance of the said offence has been taken by the court concerned vide order dated 02.12.2021.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the petitioner along with other co-accused in criminal conspiracy with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China and their Indian agent cheated the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad during the period 2009 to 2016 by issuing supply order for 02 Road Header Machines for use in coal mining works, making payment to the said company and accepting the said machines which are not fulfilling the required technical specification due to which both machines broke down/remained unutilized resulting into wrongful loss of Rs.11.6 Crores approx to the BCCL. Against the requirement of Road Header Machines of 1.6M, the said company supplied machines with overall height much more than specified in N.I.T. and supply order.

5. The inspection reports were submitted by the said company, due to which, both machines were not accepted by W.J. Area, Moonidih, BCCL, Dhanbad, but still the accused officials accepted the machines and made 80% of the payment and they tried to justify the said illegal procurement to reuse the rejected machines instead of 4 2025:JHHC:20748 insisting the said firm to replace or modify the machines at their cost. It was known to the accused officials that the height of machines was much higher than the available seam of coal and as such there was no way the machines could have been put to any productive use.

6. It has also been alleged that they failed to recommend any action against the said company or its Indian agent who had supplied the machines which was not as per supply order and taken 80% payment. It has also been alleged that one of the Road Header Machine broke down since November, 2015 and another was stopped w.e.f. 03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial. Thus, the petitioner and other co-accused, public servants of BCCL have cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.11.6 Crores approx and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

Submission made on behalf of the petitioner

7. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet was submitted on 22.09.2021 by the CBI.

8. He has submitted that the allegation relates to a commercial matter and transaction arising out of contract, which suggests that this is a matter of civil nature, whereas, the criminal case has unnecessarily been registered against the petitioner.

2025:JHHC:20748

9. He has further submitted that till initiation of the tender process i.e. floating of global tender and conclusion of tender process i.e. issuance of purchase order/supply order dated 24.07.2009 opening of LC account, the petitioner herein was not at all concerned with the entire process.

10. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case only on the ground that the petitioner being the Director Technical (Operation) had extended the delivery period for a period of eleven days provisionally, reserving right to impose liquidated damages. Prior to extension of delivery period by the petitioner, the delivery period was already extended twice i.e. first extension was granted on 04.09.2010 and second was granted on 07.02.2011. A proper note was presented before the petitioner, who at the relevant pointed of time was the in-charge of the Director Technical (Operation) and in his capacity, he had extended delivery period only by eleven days with imposition of liquidated damages.

11. He has further submitted that the records of the case would reveal that the matter pertaining to purchase of Road Header Machines had begun in 2008 and concluded in 2009. In as much as NIT for supply of Road Header Machines was issued on 12th February, 2008, pre- bid meeting, opening of technical bid, financial bid and 6 2025:JHHC:20748 issuance of supply order was completed on 24.07.2009, whereas the petitioner had joined as Director Technical (Operations).

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was nowhere involved in the transactions of procurement process of Road Header Machines from the date of issuance of NIT till issuance of supply order.

13. It has been submitted that the aforesaid pre bid meeting and issuance of addendum to the main NIT were done in consonance with the purchase manual of Coal India Limited which provides the duty and responsibility of the tender committee, which spells that the Committee will give recommendation regarding acceptance or otherwise any deviation quoted by the bidders. Therefore, the Committee is within its competence to take a decision and may deviate taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the coal mines for which the procurement was sought for.

14. He has further submitted that so far as the second allegation regarding extension of letter of credit without obtaining revised drawing which relates to the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that there is no concept of extension of letter of credit in any international trade of 7 2025:JHHC:20748 commerce and the moment delivery time is extended, the period of letter of credit will also automatically be extended.

15. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as the allegation with respect to clear the draft board agenda note for acceptance of unsuitable road header machine is concerned, after the dispatch and assembling for the first time, it came to the knowledge of the BCCL on 20.12.2011 on joint inspection in presence of the members of the BCCL and M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd. (supplier) that height of the machine is not in conformity with the NIT and purchase order. On the very next day, the same was duly informed to the concerned authorities who were actively involved in the purchase of two road header machines on 21.12.2011.

16. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has already retired from the service of BCCL.

17. Based upon the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017- D including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.

Submission made on behalf of the respondent-CBI

18. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that investigation revealed that unsuitable Road 8 2025:JHHC:20748 Header Machines were procured by the accused officials of BCCL from M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd, China and the machines could not clear field trial to get approval from DGMS, Dhanbad. As a result, both machines remained unutilized resulting into huge wrongful loss to BCCL and corresponding gain to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China and M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata. Both the Road Header machines became idle or of no use to BCCL resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.11,15,62,132/- to BCCL with corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China and M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata due to conspiracy, criminal misconduct and abuse of official position by the accused officials of BCCL.

19. He has further submitted that the petitioner, in the capacity of Director (Technical) Operation, BCCL Headquarter, Dhanbad had extended delivery period with imposition of liquidated damages which was sent to him for his approval without safeguarding the interest of BCCL.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that in view of the aforesaid, no interference is required and the instant case may be dismissed. Analysis 9 2025:JHHC:20748

21. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

22. Before adverting into facts of the instant case it will be profitable to discuss herein the ambit and scope of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

23. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra , (2019) 18 SCC 191.

24. It is settled proposition of law that to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that 10 2025:JHHC:20748 his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Reference in this regard may be taken by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] which reads as under:

25. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India were highlighted and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

26. In Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar [(2008) 14 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 12 2025:JHHC:20748 that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are unlimited, that the High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a concurring order passed in the very same case, it was observed in addition that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the High Court is free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether charge as framed could be maintained.

27. In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home [(2019) 11 SCC 706], referring to the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR 13 2025:JHHC:20748 stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court."

28. Thus, it is settled position in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.

29. As can be gathered from the above, Section 482 Cr. P.C. recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court to quash initiation of prosecution against the accused to pass such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr. P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to 14 2025:JHHC:20748 quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the charges levelled against the accused and based on the material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the assertions contained in the charges levelled by the prosecution deserve to be overruled.

30. While exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., whether at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused would lead to a conclusion that their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by the accused should also be such that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled against them as false.

31. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court is now adverting to the fact of the case in order to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner that he has no role in the alleged commission of crime.

32. This Court has gone through the order taking cognizance as well as various paragraph of the counter affidavit, wherefrom it is evident that in the present case 15 2025:JHHC:20748 investigation disclosed materials which shows that undue concessions and favours were made to benefit of the supplier Company which would be evident from the material as surfaced during investigation.

33. In the chargesheet, it has been revealed that that 09 Road Header Machines of different makers were procured from M/s Voiest Alpine, Austria, M/s Dosco Overseas Engineering Ltd, UK, M/s DBT GB Ltd., UK and M/s Joy Mining Machinery Ltd., UK by Coal India Limited (CIL) for BCCL during March 1980 to November 1986 to be used in Moonidih Mines of BCCL. All these Road Header Machines were of overall height in range of 1.2 M to 1.4 M. These Machines were having requisite DGMS approval and all the machines were/are giving satisfactory services even though they had surpassed their economic life span of 09 years.

34. It has also been further disclosed in the chargesheet that in the supply order that machines should be dispatched from China only after approval of the machine drawing by the BCCL. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy to show undue favour to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd, China and M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd., Kolkata, the name of the BCCL officials have been disclosed, who enclosed the unapproved and disputed machine drawing submitted by M/s Jiamusi 16 2025:JHHC:20748 Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China along with its offer to BCCL.

35. It has further been revealed in the chargesheet that as per the NIT, the requirement is 1.6 Meter only and M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., China also offered machine with maximum overall height of 1.65 Meter, but they had enclosed drawing of overall height of 2.5 meter. Besides that the NIT had the provision that in case any inspected or tested machine fail to conform to the specifications, the purchaser (BCCL) may reject them and the supplier shall either replace the rejected machine and make alternative arrangement to meet specification requirements 'free of cost' to the purchaser.

36. From perusal of the chargesheet it is evident that in the present case investigation disclosed materials which shows that undue concessions and favours were made to benefit the supplier Company. Some of the materials that have been arraigned against the officers of company in extending favour to the Company are as under: a. M/s Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to participate in the pre bid meeting although it had not disclosed the name of the manufacturing company it was representing. After the pre bid meeting two vital NIT clauses were modified causing undue benefit to the accused company M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd 17 2025:JHHC:20748 Kolkata. Last date of opening tender was extended up to 26.05.2008 and subsequently it was further extended up to 28.07.08. M/s Minop Innovative Technologies (P) Ltd. Kolkata signed a MOU with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd. on 25.7.2008 just before expiry of last date of tender submission to form a consortium. The clause of global tender and NIT did not allow the consortium to participate in the bid, despite this M/s Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to participate in the tender process.

37. The offer and technical specifications given by the Chinese firms were not fulfilling NIT Parameters which was liable to be rejected but the same was accepted.

38. It has also come that the offered machine was violating six major criteria given in the NIT. The biggest deviation was the overall height of the machine which was 2.5 M against the maximum prescribed height of 1.6 M in the NIT. Despite the defects in the tender bid the price bid was opened for M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd.

39. It was mentioned in the supply order that machines would be dispatched from China only after approval of the machine drawing by BCCL. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy to show undue favour to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., accused officers of the 18 2025:JHHC:20748 BCCL enclosed the unapproved and disputed machine drawing submitted by M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd, along with its offer to BCCL, in the supply order. As per this machine drawing, overall height of machine was 2.5 m. The requirement as per NIT was 1.6 m (+/- 5% variation) only. The NIT had the provision that in case any inspected or tested machine fail to conform to the specifications, the purchaser may reject them and the supplier shall either replace the rejected machine and make alternative arrangement to meet specification requirements "free of cost" to the purchaser.

40. The clause in the NIT, for inspection/tests to be conducted on the premises of the supplier at point of delivery and/or at the goods of final destination was also dropped from the supply order.

41. No action was recommended against the supplier Company or its Indian agent who had supplied the machines which were not as per the supply order. The required DGMS approvals were not obtained before their operation in the mines.

42. The payment clause of NIT stipulated that for imported supply, 80% value of each equipment and accessory would be paid only against letter of Credit and the equipment should be accompanied with relevant dispatch documents including inspection certificate of 19 2025:JHHC:20748 CIL/BCCL. But in the supply order the said condition was not incorporated.

43. The accused companies had no safety approvals from the Director General Mines Safety (DGMS), regarding this machine.

44. Petitioner is facing prosecution, inter alia, for the offence of criminal conspiracy with other officers to favour the supplier, Company. In the teeth of the above materials, it cannot be said that the charges are groundless.

45. There are specific allegations against this petitioner has come in the Final Form which has been quoted herein under:

46. Considering the above discussed materials, the plea of the petitioner that there were no sufficient grounds against him, cannot be countenanced. The definition of 20 2025:JHHC:20748 Section 13(2)(d) of the P.C Act is wide enough to bring within its sweep, the acts of the public servant by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

47. It requires to refer herein that conspiracy is not an open affair, therefore, the prosecution has to rely upon evidence pertaining to the acts of various parties to prove such an agreement of conspiracy on the basis of circumstantial evidence which can be inferred by necessary implication.

48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions has observed that for an offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the propagators expressly agree to do or carried to be done an illegal act and such agreement may be proved by necessary implication to be determined from the circumstantial evidence brought on record.

49. Further, Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a 21 2025:JHHC:20748 conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT Petitioner v. Nalini and others; (1999) 5 SCC 253.

50. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and the section will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to that conspiracy.

51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617 has held as follows:--

52. Thus, from the aforesaid settled proposition of law that offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence but the Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.

53. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal proposition it is evident that the angle of conspiracy on behalf of the petitioner may well be appreciated before trial court only.

54. It is evident from record that the chargesheet was submitted and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 02.12.2021. It appears that the learned court has applied its mind and thereafter has taken cognizance by passing a well-reasoned order. This is not the case that before the learned court the entire materials are not there, as the materials are there before the learned court in the form of chargesheet and looking into that the learned court has passed the order. At the time of issuing process, the learned Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and the learned Magistrate is only to 23 2025:JHHC:20748 be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. When issuing summons, the learned Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

55. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not the same at the time of framing the charge.

56. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. In cases instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the learned Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction 24 2025:JHHC:20748 or when the chargesheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the learned Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. The cognizance of offence was taken by taking into consideration the chargesheet filed by the police and looking into the case diary.

57. It also appears that necessary sanction order has been obtained against the present petitioner along with the other accused persons.

58. There are parameters of quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance and at the time of quashing the entire criminal proceeding, the High Court is required to look into the matter with circumspection and if cogent reasons are there, then only the quashing of the cognizance order is made out. There is no doubt, if a false case is there, the burden on the court is higher, and the court is required to read the things in between the lines.

59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha VS Pratima Mohanty, 2022 0 AIR(SC) 41 by taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors. , AIR 1992 SC 604 has held that normally in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal 25 2025:JHHC:20748 proceedings/FIR should not be quashed, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being referred herein:-

60. In view of the facts discussed hereinabove as also taking into consideration the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that there are materials against the petitioner, which has been appreciated by the learned court and thereafter cognizance has been taken.

2025:JHHC:20748

61. As such, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Birendra/ 27