Santosh Kumar Shah V. The Union of India through CBI

Cr.M.P./1401/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Kumar Shah, who filed a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him, including an order of cognizance dated 02.02.2022 by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. The proceedings were based on allegations of a criminal conspiracy with Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh, who was accused of acquiring disproportionate assets and concealing black money. The petitioner was alleged to have received a loan from Dutta, which was used to hide the proceeds of crime. The main legal contention was the applicability of Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988, which had been amended in 2018 to delete this section, although the events in question occurred prior to the amendment. The CBI opposed the quashing, citing intercepted calls as evidence of the petitioner's complicity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811464 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharastra 2021 SCC On Line SC 315
• Laws Referred To: IPC, P.C. Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; NITISH PARTH SARTHI; CHANDANA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRANJAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Black money; Criminal conspiracy; Disproportionate assets; Quashing of criminal proceeding; Intercepted calls
• Section: 120B; 13(1)(e)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1401 of 2022 Santosh Kumar Shah .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The Union of India through CBI .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : M/s Anil Kumar, ASGI Nitish Parth Sarthi & Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI …... 06/ 04.07.2023. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.02.2022 passed by learned AJC-XVIII- cum- Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C.-3 (A)/ 2018-D whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 120B of the IPC and 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988. 2. The core and kernel of the prosecution case is that petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with principal accused, Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh who acquired disproportionate assets by abusing his official position, and he had taken loan of Rs.2.5 Crores from Tapas Kumar Dutta with interest @6% per month. This was taken to conceal the black money generated by the principal accused. The interest on the loan amount was paid by the petitioner in cash through Bishwanath Agarwal to said Tapas Kumar Dutta. The material on the basis of which allegation is made is that the intercepted calls between Tapas Kumar Dutta and this petitioner. 3. The present petition has been filed:- Firstly on the ground that charge-sheet in this case has been filed inter-alia under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act on 13.12.2021 after coming into force of amendment in the year 2018 to the P.C. Act whereby Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act has been deleted by way of amendment; Secondly there is no material to show that any loan was given to the petitioner by the principal accused (Tapas Kumar Dutta) in the seizure list of the documents which has come at Serial Nos.151 & 158 of the charge-sheet. 4. Learned ASGI for the CBI has opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that the offence relates to the year 2017-18 before the 2018 amendment to the P.C. Act came into force and, therefore, the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. and the material on the basis of which the complicity of the petitioner has come up is the intercepted calls. 5. It is submitted that specific reference has been made of the intercepted call of voice conversation of the petitioner which was taken by the CBI on 14.07.2017 as the evidence of the loan having been taken by the petitioner in the counter affidavit. 6. After having considered the rival submissions on behalf of both the sides, I find that there is no room for interfering with the impugned order as a prima-facie case has been made on the basis of materials on record. The scope of adjudication at this stage is a limited one. It has been held in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharastra 2021 SCC On Line SC 315 in that 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; For the above stated position of fact and law, this court is of the view that no interference warranted. Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ "