Cav Judgment:

1. Four Criminal Miscellaneous are being heard and disposed of together in this case.

2. Cr. Misc. No. 63432 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Nawal Kishore Ladha whereas Cr. Misc. No. 64815 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Ladha. Cr. Misc. No. 66404 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Sah whereas Cr. Misc. No. 69413 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of Sachin Mishra.

3. Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar are being represented by learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, whereas Sachin Mishra is represented by Learned Counsel Mr. Akash Deep. CBI is represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Standing Counsel in all the cases.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party.

5. Basic facts are being taken from Cr. Misc. No. 63432 of 2023 filed by Mr. Nawal Kishore Ladha.

6. The petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2023 passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022, CIS-5/2022 by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Patna whereby the learned Court was pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018).

7. The FIR in the instant case was lodged by CBI being RC0232022A0008 dated 31.07.2022 under Section 7 and 8 of the PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar Saha were arrayed as Accused No. 4, 5 and 6, whereas Sachin Mishra, Senior DOM, Sonepur, East Central Railway, Bihar was arrayed as Accused No. 3. Out of these four petitioners before the Court only Sachin Mishra is a railway employee. Nawal Kishore Ladha is the director of M/S Abha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Abha Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. Manoj Ladha is also the director of both the companies and Manoj Kumar Saha is an employee of Nawal Kishore Ladha and Manoj Kumar Ladha.

8. The prosecution case is that the CBI received information that officials of East Central Railway including Sachin Mishra and some other public servants were in the habit of collecting illegal gratification from the vendors of East Central Railway for preferential allotment of Railway rack for loading goods. The information to the CBI further reveals that the private petitioners in conspiracy with officials used to avail out of turn and priority allotment of railway rack services, having extra stacking time and other undue advantage in exchange of payment of dues bribe on monthly basis.

9. The CBI received information that on earlier occasions Rupesh Kumar received Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs on 27.06.2022 from Nawal Kishore Ladha through his driver Manoj Kumar Saha. Sachin Mishra has also received money along with Sanjay Kumar. The Information also revealed that on 30.07.2022 Nawal Kishore Ladha again directed Manoj Kumar Ladha and Bajrang Ladha to send 23.5 lakhs to Patna, Sonepur and Samastipur in different envelopes containing Rs. 6 lacs, 6 lacks, 5 lacs, 3 lacs, 2.75 lacs, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- to be delivered to various officers of East Central Railway. Thus, a trap was laid and a CBI team was constituted. Pre-trap proceedings were completed. They found that a vehicle moved in around Patliputra Railway Parishar, Patna and a person with carrying a grey colour bag entered the premises of Patiputra Railway Parishar at 15:30 hours. When Manoj Saha came out, he was intercepted and then they challenged that Manoj Kumar Saha has handed over the bribe of Rs. 6 lacs to Sanjay Kumar. He accepted his guilt. He was arrested. He stated that he delivered money in yellow packet to Sri Sanjay Kumar. One other person Suman Kumar Singh was sitting in the vehicle. Thereafter, the team entered the house of Sri Sanjay Kumar. From his almirah one yellow coloured packets was recovered. It was opened and Rs. 6 lacs was found in the envelop. Thereafter, Manoj Kumar Saha told that the other packets were to be delivered to other officials and the police recovered the amount of Rs. 17.50 lacs from the vehicle.

10. A team from CBI on 31.07.2022 raided the house of Nawal Kishore Ladha and Manoj Kumar Ladha and they were taken into custody.

11. As the record reveals the case of Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar Saha are more or less similar. Two of them are the vendors of Railway and Manoj Kumar Saha is their employee who was allegedly sent to deliver the bribe. The case of Sachin Mishra is on a different footing as he was the proposed recipient of the bribe and was a railway official.

12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners company procures food grains, repacks them and then supplies it to its buyers. For storage and re-packaging, the company has established different godowns in Bihar. Railway is one of the modes of transportation. It is their case that prior to 2014 the process of registration of demand for wagons/racks was being done manually. Thereafter, the Ministry initiated web portal where entire process was computerized and there was no scope of manual intervention. The customers are provided user ID and password to log in to FOIS site. They further submit that railway rules categorically provide that allotment/loading orders are issued in accordance with priority of registration. Railway Board issues preferential traffic order wherein the preference of special facility for transport of goods is provided. The company of the petitioner was availing priority “B” category for preferential allotment of wagons. They claimed that the company has never been allotted any rack/wagon out of term.

13. The Prosecution submitted final form no. 8/2022 dated 29.09.2022 and thereafter it filed supplementary charge-sheet bearing No. 06/2023 dated 30.05.2023 in the present prosecution.

14. The petitioners assert that recovery of Rs. 17.50 lacs from car was for farmers for procuring food grains and that they have no connection with the bribe recovered from the house of the officials.

15. They stated that basic allegation in the present prosecution regarding giving of illegal gratification for preferential or out of term or emergent allotment of rack of railway officials by the petitioner is completely false as railway has a transparent mechanism of registration of demand of racks and its allotment through FOIS website electronically.

16. The counsel also states that in the supplementary charge-sheet, in deviation to the basic allegation of preference to the allotment of general wagons to the company of the petitioner, the issue of allotment of premium wagons that too totally misconceived has been added. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan also states that though by the supplementary charge-sheet the I.O. has tried to make out a case that the petitioner company used to get premium indents cancelled and get a regular indent allotted in exchange for the same which is false as the cancellation of premium indent was not at the whim of the officer and the destination for which premium indents were cancelled and the destination for which general indent were allotted are totally different.

17. The argument of the counsel in the first blush seems attractive. He has argued that railways have transparent system and that there was no scope for any deviation by the officials. They have tried to argue that initially in the FIR allegation was with regard to preferential allotment of railway racks for loading goods. When no material was found to support the said allegation, another allegation was attempted to be made in the supplementary charge sheet that the petitioner-company used to get premium indents cancelled and get a regular indent allotted in exchange of the same.

18. The counsel for the petitioners in three cases of Vendor side, however, could not explain the trapping of Sri Manoj Kumar Saha in the Patliputra Railway Parishar with Rs. 17.5 lacs in different packets and recovery of Rs. 6 lacs from Sanjay Kumar a railway official who has been named in the FIR.

19. In the considered opinion of this Court the issue of preferential allotment of general wagons to the company and the issue of cancelation of premium indents and allotment of regular indent are clearly extremely disputed questions of fact. The counsel no doubt has laboriously taken the Court through different rules and orders showing that there was no scope for manual interference. However, the very detailing of the issue in the petition itself would show that this is clear question of fact where documents both private and public are needed to be seen, exhibited and proved. There is clear requirement of analysis of the rules and matching them with the documents of the railways as well as that of the petitioner. Only then a finding of guilt or otherwise could be arrived at.

20. That the scope of summary jurisdiction under Section 482 is limited. Though the documents of unimpeachable integrity could be looked into by the Court but the disputed questions of fact like the allotment orders and the cancellation orders as well as reason for cancellation etc. are beyond the scope or jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 against the order taking cognizance. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the facts require a detailed adjudication and it will not be possible to determine the veracity of allegation or otherwise in the instant proceeding.

21. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Ranjan has emphasized judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 that wrong gain or loss is required. The court is not in disagreement. The judgment referred to is of appeal after conviction. Here the issue is as to whether this forum at this stage is empowered to look into materials.

22. In Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 398 Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para 11 that, “...Suffice it is to observe that the High Court should not have examined and recorded conclusion on the disputed fact to quash the FIR...”

23. In State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 703 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at Para 8.2 that, “It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint ”

24. In Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 it has been held that, “11.5. Thus, the cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial”.

25. This Court, in the light of Judgments quoted above juxtaposed against the facts of this Case, feels that the case is one where disputed questions of facts are involved and thus the order of cognizance need not be interfered with.

26. So far as the case against Sachin Mishra, the Railway officials is concerned, he is a railway official. The case against him rests solely on the confessional statement of Manoj Kumar Saha that he was one of the intended recipients of the packets seized at the Patiputra Railway Parishar. Further allegation is that in order to give the first three petitioners preferential allotment in booking of railway racks he has accepted bribes from them on 24.05.2022 and on 11.06.2022.

27. The counsel for the petitioner asserts and the counsel for the CBI has no response at all to the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Akash Deep that in the entire investigation including the first charge-sheet dated 29.09.2022 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.05.2023 there is no material to suggest that the petitioner on 24.05.2022 and 11.06.2022 received any bribe.

28. It is submitted that even in the confession of Manoj Kumar Saha it was disclosed only that the bribe amount was to be delivered to the other officers of the railway. He did not even name the petitioner as one of the persons to whom the bribe was to be delivered.

29. Mr. Akash Deep, Learned Counsel for Sachin Mishra has stated that though the CBI claims that the voice recording of the petitioner was there but they have not given any detail of any telephonic conversation nor there is any transcript copy of the conversation to support the allegation.

30. The counsel for the petitioner asserts that on 31.07.2022 as well as on 01.08.2022 the premises of the petitioner i.e. even office, guest house including his residential flat at Anishabad, Patna were searched by the CBI but there was no recovery of any document relating to business transaction of Ladha brothers. He asserts that only a conversation would not implicate the petitioners as they were the vendors of the railway and he was an official of railway and unless any conversation or transcription is specified there is no point entering into the area of telephonic conversation to implicate the petitioner. He also asserts that the petitioner joined the Sonepur Division on 27.04.2022 much after the initiation of preliminary investigation and thus, the information received by the CBI in respect of Sonepur Division was not against the petitioner as he was not even posted at the said Division.

31. That the counsel for the CBI has filed counter affidavit. The counter affidavit in para 5 refers to the telephonic conversation but again without any detail despite the specific allegation of counsel for the petitioner that there is no reference to any conversation implicating him in the entire chat. In para 16 a very vague allegation has been levelled. It states that though the accused petitioner had no role in booking and cancellation of premium intends he knowingly created hurdles in the way of premium indents by allowing stacking for normal indents so that premium indents got automatically cancelled on technical grounds. This is as vague as it could get.

32. There is no response to the allegation that the petitioner was not caught with the money. Nothing was recovered from him in the raid conducted by CBI in his premises. There is no detail of any telephonic conversation or any transcript in both the charge-sheets implicating the petitioner. No response to this allegation has been given in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI. Again, no material has been disclosed in the entire investigation as to the specific source of information regarding the bribe earlier taken or any money trail connecting the petitioner.

33. In absence of the same, there is absolutely no material at all to proceed against the petitioner even on the basis of a suspicion because the CBI during entire investigation could not bring up a single credible material connecting the petitioner with the crime.

34. In result Cr. Misc. No. 63432 of 2023 filed on behalf of Nawal Kishore Ladha, Cr. Misc. No. 64815 of 2023 filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Ladha and Cr. Misc. No. 66404 of 2023 filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Sah are dismissed whereas Cr. Misc. No. 69413 of 2023 filed on behalf of Sachin Mishra is allowed.

35. The order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2023 passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022, CIS-5/2022 by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I, whereby the learned Court was pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and issued summons against Nawal Kishore Ladha, Manoj Kumar Ladha and Manoj Kumar Saha stands. They are to face trial.

36. The order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2023 passed in R.C. No. 8(A) of 2022, CIS-5/2022 by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I, whereby the learned Court was pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and issued summons against Sachin Mishra is hereby quashed.