Judgment & Order (Cav):
1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This is an application u/s 528 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 154/2024 dated 24.06.2024 u/s 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 IPC in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 93/2023 u/s 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 IPC corresponding to PRC Case No. 607/2024 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Dibrugarh and also challenged the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 passed by learned CJM, Dibrugarh in C.R. Case No. 10/2023 directing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 to be investigated by O/C, Dibrugarh PS and also challenged the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by learned JMFC, Dibrugarh in PRC Case No. 607/2024 taking cognizance against the petitioners u/s 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no. 2, the life members of a Society, namely, Shree Vishwanath Marwari Databya Aushadhalaya , a charitable institution is primarily engaged in providing health care services and undertakings of various philanthropic activities. The petitioners are also engaged in various business activities and are also actively involved in the affairs of the said Society. But, the respondent no. 2 with a malafide intention to malign the reputation of the petitioners, it filed a complaint being C.R. Case No. 10/2023 before the learned CJM, Dibrugarh only with ill intent and personal gain.
4. One Chartered Accountant (CA) Vinay Shah lodged a complaint against the respondent no. 2 who was serving as an Auditor in the said institution wherein it is alleged that the respondent no. 2 had threatened him to alter his Audit Reports concerning the Society and to handover the confidential document pertaining thereto. Under duress, he furnished the confidential documents to the respondent no. 2 and issued a compromised audit opinion in respect of the Society in order to avoid further confrontation. The said complaint was subsequently circulated across various social media platforms by CA Vinay Shah. These petitioners were nether involved in the alleged acts nor named in the said complaint. However, to ensure proper investigation, the petitioner no. 1 being the Secretary of the said Society, addressed a letter to the Officer in Charge of the Dibrugarh Police Station. However, during pendency of the said investigation, the said CA Vinay Shah withdrawn his complaint against the respondent no. 2 for the pressure exercising upon him by the respondent no. 2. Subsequently and rather surprisingly, the respondent no. 2 lodged the instant complaint against the present petitioners alleging that the CA Vinay Shah had acted at their behest and with the circulation of his compliant on various social media platforms had caused reputational harm to him.
5. But, on investigation, the police found no criminality on the part of the petitioners and hence did not initiate any action. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 directly preferred a complaint petition before the learned CJM, Dibrugarh which has been registered as C.R. Case No. 10/2023. On bare perusal of the complaint petition clearly reveals that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. The entire allegations are directly brought solely against CA Vinay Shah. However, he has not been arrayed as an accused. The omission to implead CA Vinay Shah, despite being the central figure in the factual narrative, clearly reflects the mala fide intention of the respondent no. 2 only to harass and malign the petitioners.
6. Upon receipt of the said complaint the learned CJM, Dibrugarh vide its order dated 21.01.2023 directed the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh PS to investigate into the matter by registering the case and treating the complaint as an FIR. Accordingly, the Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 93/2023 has been registered and the matter was investigated by the I/O. Thereafter, on completion of investigation Charge Sheet is also filed being No. 154/2024 u/s 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 IPC against all the petitioners. On receipt of the Charge Sheet the same has been registered and numbered as PRC Case No. 607/2024 and the learned CJM, Dibrugarh transferred the same before the Court of learned JMFC for disposal. On receipt of the record the learned JMFC, Dibrugarh vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024 had taken cognizance against the present petitioners u/s 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 IPC and summonses were accordingly issued against them all.
7. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Charge Sheet and the order of cognizance the present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the order of taking cognizance by the learned JMFC.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Advocate that the respondent no. 2 had instituted the complaint with some false and frivolous allegation and only to harass and malign the petitioners in the Society. He further submitted that from the complaint petition/FIR and the Charge Sheet, it clearly reveals that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. But, without considering these aspects of the case, the learned Trial Court below had issued process by taking cognizance against the present petitioners. More so, the order dated 21.01.2023 passed by learned CJM, Dibrugarh directing the Officer-in-Charge of Dibrugarh PS to register the complaint as an FIR also vitiates the statutory mandate u/s 154(3) Cr.PC. Further, he submitted that all the essential ingredients of the offence as alleged, particularly u/s 120(B)/420/506/200 IPC are entirely absent in the instant case. The essential element of mensrea is not made out. Mere associate of the petitioners with the Society or their action in administrative capacity do not establish any conspiracy or fraudulent intent warranting any criminal prosecution.
9. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Advocate that the learned CJM, Dibrugarh directed for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.PC without the complaint being supported by any affidavit. The affidavit supporting the present complaint cannot be termed as an affidavit, and at best can be termed as verification. It is well settled that applications u/s 156(3) must be accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit by the complainant and failing which the Magistrate has no jurisdiction or to act upon the petition.
10. Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the order is passed in a very mechanical manner without any application of judicial mind. It is incumbent upon the learned CJM, Dibrugarh not only to insist on affidavit but also to actively verify the truth and veracity of the allegations before ordering for an investigation by treating the same as a complaint. More so, the complainant must first apply with the Section 154(1) & (3) Cr.PC and the petition must strictly state the same as well as annex the complaint so made. Mere oral submissions or delayed filing cannot substitute that statutory mandate. The procedural scheme mandates that the complainant must first approach the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station by submitting written complaint u/s 154(1) Cr.PC and if no action is taken thereupon, the complainant is then required to approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3), furnishing a copy of original complaint and seeking the appropriate redress. But, such compliance was conspicuously not complied with any proceeding under challenge.
11. In the present case the complaint petition before the learned Magistrate though disclosed prior intimation to police u/s 154(1), but not produced or annexed any such complaint before the learned Magistrate nor does it refer to any subsequent representation made to the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3).
12. Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the allegations made in the instant complaint/FIR are also absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. The allegation made in the complaint/FIR if taken at their face value, no prudent reasonable and just person can come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the purpose of criminal proceeding against the petitioners. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the order passed by the learned CJM for u/s 156(3) in sending the same before the police for registering a case vis-à-vis the impugned Charge Sheet No. 154/2024 dated 24.06.2024 as well as the order of taking cognizance by learned JMFC vide its order dated 11.07.2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed by complying with the provision of Section 528 BNSS.
13. Mr. Dutta further submitted that before passing an order of cognizance and process against any accused/persons the Court has to satisfy himself as to whether there is any prima facie case to take cognizance against the accused/petitioner. Merely in a mechanical manner cognizance cannot be taken against any person. To substantiate his plea, he also relied on a decision of Supreme Court, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 [Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Others]and basically emphasized in para 54 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :-
“54.…… judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At that stage the Court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process.”
14. He cited another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9452/2025 and basically emphasized in paragraphs 13 & 14 of the said judgment.
“13. The principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal case as well as parameters for quashing criminal proceedings are well-settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinized the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused3.
14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation4.
15. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the present criminal proceeding initiated against the present accused/petitioners are liable to be set aside and quashed by invoking power u/s 528 BNSS.He further submitted that this is the fourth complaint on the basis of which Charge Sheet is filed and in the earlier two complaints only the allegation of defamation is brought against the present petitioners and thus the present complaint can only be considered as subsequent complaint and can only be considered as statement u/s 162 Cr.PC.
16. Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted in this regard that the learned Trial Court below had rightly took the cognizance of an offence on perusal of the case records and the materials available in the Case Diary and hence there is no need of any interference of this Court in the order of taking cognizance as well as there is no reason for setting aside and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the Charge Sheet as well as the complaint/FIR. He further submitted that though earlier two complaints have been made before the concerned police station as well as the SP, those were not yet registered and hence the complaint is to be instituted before the learned CJM with a prayer to send it for registration and enquiry before the concerned police station. He further submitted that from the annexure filed along with IA as well as the petition it reveals that the petitioner earlier approached in two occasions with a complaint before the concerned police station as well as the SP concerned. But, those were not registered, nor being accepted and for which the present complaint had to be instituted. It is a fact that on 21.01.2023 the complaint was sent before the police station for registration and investigation of a case but, that was received by the concerned police station only on 18.02.2023, on the basis of which the same has been registered and matter was enquired upon. Thus, it is not a case that there was another FIR before the police station and it is the only complaint which was sent before the police station on 21.01.2023 by the learned Court below. Hence, the submission that another complaint was filed on 18.02.2023 is not tenable and it is the only complaint made before the learned CJM which was sent for registration and was received and registered only on 18.02.2023 by the concerned police station. After the case has been Charge Sheeted, the case was transferred to the Court of learned JMFC, Dibrugarh and after perusal of the case record and finding sufficient grounds, the cognizance was taken against the present petitioners and summonses were accordingly issued against them. Though the summonses were issued on 11.07.2024 but, till date the petitioners never appeared before the Court though the petition was filed on their behalf whereby it is also intimated regarding the order of this Court. Thus, the earlier two FIRs are also not in existence to consider the present complaint of the FIR as statement made u/s 162 Cr.PC and complaint had to be instituted before the learned CJM, Dibrugarh only after non-acceptance and non-registration of the case even after approach before the concerned SP of the district. As the accused/petitioners did not appear before the learned Trial Court below, the charges could not be framed against them and all these pleas can be taken at the time of charge hearing and the case is at a very initial stage/pre-matured stage to make a prayer for quashing.
17. Mr. Baruah further submitted that there is categorical statement made in the FIR/complaint regarding the earlier complaint filed before the police station as well as SP and on the basis of which an affidavit was also sworn by the petitioners and considering all the aspects of the case, the matter was sent for registration and enquiry by the learned CJM, Dibrugarh. Thus, there is proper compliance of Section 154(1) and 156(3) of the Cr.PC. He further submitted that on plain reading of the FIR itself it is seen that there is a prima facie case present against the accused/petitioners on the basis of which the Charge Sheet as well as cognizance was taken against them. Mr. Baruah accordingly raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding only on the basis of some technical issues which were raised by the petitioners u/s 154(1) and 156(3) Cr.PC.
18. Mr. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed by the Division Bench in case of Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Others and basically emphasized on paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 37 & 38 of the said judgment wherein also there was an order of investigation passed by the learned JMFC u/s 156(3)(5) for investigation/ registration of the case. He further submitted that in paragraphs 37 & 38 of the said judgment it has also been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Magistrate has discretion in the matter and if he finds the allegation therein discloses a cognizable offence and forwarding of the complaint to police for investigation u/s 156(3) will be conducive to justify and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate. Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the said judgment read as under:-
“37. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the position of law enunciated in Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, wherein it was held that:
‘18. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the precognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).’ (emphasis supplied).
38. In the background of the factual position, the JMFC’s Order dated 18.01.2018 cannot be faulted. Enough material is available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the police. The JMFC, to our mind, had rightly referred the matter for investigation to the police since a prima facie case stood made out against the accused, in view of the material that was available with the JMFC. In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, three learned Judges of this Court opined:
‘13. We may first deal with the question as to whether the Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Section 156(3) or was justified in proceeding under Section 202(1) and what are the parameters for exercise of power under the two provisions.
Xxx
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that:
22.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
22.2. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine “existence of sufficient ground to proceed”. Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] may fall under Section 202.
22.3. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case.
Xxx
38. In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252: 1976 SCC (Cri) 380], National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz [(2013) 2 SCC 488: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 731], Madhao v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 615: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 141], Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 4 SCC 185: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 801], the scheme of Sections 156(3) and 202 has been discussed. It was observed that power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and was in the nature of preemptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning with Section 156 and ending with report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at post-cognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to proceed.’ (emphasis supplied)
19. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the earlier two FIRs were not acted upon and for which the present petitioners had to approach the learned CJM, Dibrugarh with a request to send the same for registration and enquiry of the case and thus the order was rightly passed u/s 156(3) for investigation and registration of the case. More so, finding of prima facie case against the present petitioners, the cognizance was accordingly taken and process was issued. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Trial Court below while sending the case before police station for enquiry and in the same time by taking cognizance against the present accused/petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners will also get ample opportunity to raise the objection at the time of charge hearing and the case is at a very pre-matured stage for passing any order of quashing the FIR, Charge Sheet and to set aside the impugned orders.
20. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the present application is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings along with the complaint/FIR and the Charge Sheet filed against the present petitioners and that apart they also challenged the order of sending the complaint for investigation before the Officer-in-Charge of jurisdictional police station u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the order of taking cognizance. Mr. Dutta during his deliberation submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners to take cognizance and in the same time it is also submitted by Mr. Dutta that the learned Magistrate had sent the case for investigation and registration to the police station without complying with the proper provision of Section 156(3) Cr.PC. At the initial stage of his argument he basically relied on 2/3 decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639 wherein it is basically emphasized on furnishing an affidavit while making a prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. As per Mr. Dutta the affidavit which is annexed along with the complaint/FIR cannot be termed/considered as an affidavit which is required to be submitted along with the complaint/FIR, if any prayer is made u/s 156(3) Cr.PC.
21. It is further the plea of the counsel for the petitioners that no prima facie case is revealed even on the plain reading of the complaint/FIR on the basis of which the investigation was done, Charge Sheet is filed and cognizance is also taken by the learned Trial Court below. But, on perusal of the entire case records along with the relevant annexures filed in the petition as well as the interlocutory petition it is seen that the complaint/FIR is supported with an affidavit wherein the deponent had made a statement that all the statements and the materials are true to his knowledge and belief which were made in the complaint/FIR. Thus, it is seen that an affidavit was duly sworn by the complainant at the time of instituting the complaint though there is no separate affidavit annexed along with the petition. There may not be a separate affidavit but, the affidavit annexed with the complaint in a properly sworn affidavit along with the complaint at the time of its institution. Further, it is also seen that in the complaint there is specific mention about the FIR/complaint lodged before the police station/the Superintendent of Police and clear mention is there that the complaint was not acted upon by the police officers and for which the present complaint had to be instituted before the learned CJM. From the annexures filed along with the interlocutory application also it is seen that initially the complaint was made before police station and subsequently another complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police and as those were not received/registered, the present complaint/FIR had to be instituted by the respondent/complainant. Those FIR/complaint were not acted upon by the concerned police station as well as the SP concerned and hence it cannot be held that the present complaint/FIR is merely a statement u/s 162 Cr.PC or the subsequent FIR. It is rightly submitted by Mr. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent that the earlier complaints are not in existence as those were not even accepted or acted upon by the police officers. Thus it is seen that there is proper compliance of Section 156(3) as well as 154(1) Cr.PC as per requirement of law.
22. As relied by the respondent in case of Sadiq B. Hanchinmani(supra) it is held by the Apex Court that if on reading of a complaint, the Magistrate finds that the allegations therein discloses a cognizable offence and forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring the matter, the power u/s 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate. In the case at hand also it is seen that while sending the complainant before police station for registering an enquiry, the learned Trial Court below vide its order dated 21.01.2023 had sent the complaint with a finding that for the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation is required by police to unearth the actual fact of the case. Thus, the learned Magistrate before passing the order u/s 156(3) Cr.PC had made the observation and accordingly finding it justified had passed the order. Thus, it is seen that there is no such irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate while passing the order for investigation by police and it is also seen that the affidavit is duly sworn by the complainant at the time of instituting the complaint as required under law.
23. Coming to the issue as to whether any prima facie case reveals from the plain reading of the complaint as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that there are sufficient materials which prima facie establishes a case against the present petitioners to take cognizance or to send the same for investigation by police. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supple. 1 SCC 335, the Apex Court, in Paragraph No. 102 of the judgment, held, as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code expert under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
24. In the instant case also it is seen that from the plain reading of the FIR a prima facie case is found to be established against the accused/petitioners to take cognizance against the present petitioners and materials also available to send it for investigation under the provision u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. However, the petitioners will get ample opportunity to contest the case or to raise their grievances at the time of hearing on consideration of charge. But, at this stage prima facie this Court is of opinion that there is no reasonable ground for setting aside and quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the present petitioners and also for quashing the complaint as well as the Charge Sheet filed along with the petition by invoking extra-ordinary power u/s 528 BNSS. Further, there are no illegality or mistake committed by the learned Trial Court below by passing the order dated 21.01.2023 by sending the compliant for registration and investigation before the O/C of the concerned police station.
25. With the above observations, this criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |