1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC08(A)/2017-R dated 30.10.2017, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the information has been received by the Officer-in-Charge i.e. Superintendent of Police/HOB C.B.I, ACB Ranchi as stated therein that informant has received information through reliable sources to the effect that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical Wing of MECON Ltd. entered into criminal conspiracy with the proprietors of co-accused M/s. Zeal India Chemical as well as proprietors of M/s Shiv Machine Tools and in furtherance thereof accepted illegal gratification from the two firms amounting to around Rs. 1,65,45,000/- through banking transactions. It was further alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal has received the alleged amount in various accounts existing either in his own name or in the name of his relatives/friends. It was also alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal evaluated the technical bids of the above firms submitted by them in different tenders and was also working as the Project Coordinator on behalf of MECON in the works awarded to the said firms. It was then alleged that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal was the competent person to pass the designs/drawings submitted by the firms while executing the works. It was next alleged that the M/s Zeal India Chemicals participated in the tender floated by Durgapur Steel Plant vide no DSP/PROJ- PUR/EXPN/MSM-07/308 dated 11.05.2013 and had submitted its bid on 26.06.2013. The technical bid was evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and Tender Appraisal Report was finalized in August, 2013. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Zeal India Chemicals which is still in progress. The alleged money of Rs. 49,50,000/- has been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Zeal India Chemicals during the period 12.06.2013 to 15.06.2016 through bank accounts in his own name and in the name of his relatives/friends. It was next alleged that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the tender floated by Bokaro Steel Plant vide no T&C (M) /B320/036C/SPG/314 dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The technical bid was evaluated by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal and was finalized in March 2015. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools which is still in progress. The alleged money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- has been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank account in the name of his relatives/friends. The above discussed acts on part of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Zeal India Chemical, Opposite Arya Samaj Mandir, 3rd Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi and M/s Shiv Machine Tools, 102-Armenian Street, Chennai- 600 001 disclosed commission of cognizable offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. On the above grounds, the case was registered against Upendra Nath Mandal, the then Sr. Manager, Metallurgical Wing, MECON Ltd. (Residing at House No. MIG-34, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Near Sai Mandir, Aghanpur, Jagadipur, Dist.-Bastar); M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Opposite Arya Samaj Mandir, 3rd Floor, Keshari Complex, S.N. Road Upper Bazar, Ranchi (represented through its Proprietor residing at Flat no. 2A and 2B 2nd floor, Aroma Palace, Behind Firayalal, Ranchi and M/s Shiv Machine Tools, 102-Armenian Street, Chennai-600001 (represented through its proprietor residing at 205-Swapnalok Apartment, 60-EVK Sampat Road, Vepery, Chennai -7) under the aforesaid section of law and is entrusted to Shri A.K. Singh, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi for investigation and on the basis of the said allegation the present FIR has been instituted against the 1) Upendra Nath Mandal, the then Sr. Manager, Metallurgical Wing MECON India Ltd. Ranchi 2) Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi and 3) Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools Chennai which is pending in the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XI- cum-Special Judge CBI Ranchi.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the FIR, the investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the present FIR has been submitted being Charge Sheet No.14/2020 on 27.11.2020 for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner. He submits that in the said charge-sheet the petitioner was arrayed as accused no.3 being Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai. He further submits that in the charge-sheet, it has been stated that during the investigation it is revealed that Modernization and Expansion Plan (M.E.P.) of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) was initiated at Bokaro Steel Plant which was to be done by installing new facilities and augmenting existing facilities. He submits that the MECON was appointed as consultant. The work related to Cold Rolling Mill-III laboratory of Bokaro was taken up for which tender specification was prepared by MECON in June, 2014 and accused no.1 namely Sri Upendra Nath Mandal was then posted as Senior Manager Metallurgical wing, MECON. He then submits that the tender specification was approved by Bokaro Steel Plant and the tender was floated by Bokaro Steel Plant on 03.09.2014 for which 3 bids were received including one from the petitioner. He next submits that after submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. By way of referring the contents of the charge-sheet, he submits that no offence is made out against the petitioner and it is a case of unfair and partial investigation by the CBI. He also refers the material which has been brought on record by way of filing charge-sheet. By way of referring charge-sheet particularly at internal page 12, he submits that the details of money transaction in the name of this petitioner are not there. He further submits that in the order taking cognizance, the material is not disclosed against the petitioner. He also submits that the allegation is against Mintu Naskar that he has not shown payment in the CST/VAT return. On these grounds, he submits that since the investigation was unfair and the documents prove innocence of the petitioner, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that if the materials are there and that has been withheld by the investigating agency, the Court can interfere, which has been held in the said case.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025. By way of referring paragraph 20 of the said judgment, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain steps for determining the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by the accused. He submits that in view of that, the case of the petitioner is fully covered as the documents on the record clearly suggest that the petitioner is innocent.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188. By way of referring paragraph 19 of the said judgment, he submits that if the order taking cognizance is perverse or based on no material, the Court can interfere. He submits that in light of the materials on record, the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied in the case of C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 314. He refers paragraph 14 of the said judgment and submits that in that case the High Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction, which has been set-aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next relied in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 18 SCC 251. He submits that in light of the said judgment, it is proved that if the allegation is not there, the case of the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 720.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 and submits that in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it has been held that when there is no such demand, the case will not survive.

12. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in absence of any material, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet erroneously against the petitioner and in view of that, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly be quashed.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that can be his defence and cannot be subject- matter under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He draws attention of the Court to internal page 8 of the charge-sheet and submits that it has come that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the tender floated by the Bokaro Steel Plant dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, which is still in progress. The money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- had been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank accounts in the name of his relatives/ friends. He further submits that in light of the outcome of further investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner who is the Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and got selected in Bokaro Steel Plant Cold Rolling Project Tender No.T&C(M)B320/036C/SPG/314. He further draws attention of the Court to internal page 11 of the charge-sheet and   submits that further materials are disclosed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. He then submits that it has been revealed that the Tender Appraisal Report (TAR) was prepared by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Shiv Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai was declared technically and financially eligible. The Tender Appraisal Report was sent to Bokaro Steel Plant in March, 2015 and after negotiation Bokaro Steel Plant decided to award the work to M/s Shiv Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai. He next submits that it has been further disclosed in the charge-sheet that Rs.94.39 Lakhs was given by M/s Shiv Machine Tools to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal either in the bank account of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal or in accounts of other persons linked to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal. He also refers the details of money transaction disclosed in the charge-sheet. He submits that Suresh J Shah, who happened to be relative of the petitioner, several transactions have been made through him which has been revealed in the charge-sheet. He also submits that it has also come in the charge-sheet that Rs.70 Lakhs was transferred from the account of M/s Shiv Machine Tools to the account of Sri Mintu Naskar, Proprietor of Naskar Ceramic on 14.03.2016, 06.06.2016, 07.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. The amount received from M/s Shiv Machine Tools was transferred by Sri Mintu Naskar in the account of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal on the same day or on the next day. He submits that in the charge- sheet, the investigation further revealed that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical, MECON, Ranchi was having official dealing with M/s Shiv Machine Tools and he was the overall in- charge of the above discussed project being executed by M/s Shiv Machine Tools. He next submits that in the charge-sheet, it has also been revealed that the equipment/material supplied/installed at both the plants by the accused firms were randomly inspected by the expert of Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFER), Dhanbad and it was revealed that the price paid against the purchase was on exorbitantly higher side. By way of referring internal page 15 of the charge-sheet, he further submits that it has been stated therein that Sri Upendra Nath Manal has obtained money illegally from Sri Ajay Jalan, Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi and Sri Hitesh V. Shah (petitioner), Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai during the process of facilitating the award of contract to accused nos. 2 and 3 and during the execution of work as he was the overall in charge of the aforesaid project being Project Coordinator which is nothing but the quid pro-quo. He submits that in light of the above, there are sufficient materials against the petitioner to face the trial and in light of the charge-sheet and looking into the materials, the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. He next submits that so far as the case in hand is concerned, the parameter of quashing the entire criminal proceeding is not fulfilled.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI relied in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. He refers paragraph 25 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

                  “25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.”

                  Relying on the above judgment, he submits that if any document is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is having remedy in light of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI next relied in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and others, reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399. By way of referring paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment, he submits that at this stage the High Court is not required to conduct mini trial to quash the entire criminal proceeding and that has been held in that case.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also relied in the case of IVECO Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and another, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 86. Relying on paragraph 71 of the said judgment, he submits that the quality of evidence can be made in the trial only and that has been held in the said case. He further submits that it has also been held in the said judgment that the document, which has not been looked into by the learned trial court, that cannot be considered either by the High Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

17. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the CBI relied in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1. He refers paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the said judgment, which read as under:

                  “43. The report in terms of Section 173 of the Code is in the nature of information to the Magistrate. Statutory requirement is complied with if the requisite information is given. It purports to be an opinion and therefore elaborate details are not necessary. In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] it was held as follows : (SCC p. 716, para 76)

                  “76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) CrPC. Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein

                  (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

                  (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar [(1980) 3 SCC 152 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the Magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the investigating officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.”

                  44. Mere non-description of the offences in detail is really not material. At the stage of framing charge it can be urged that no offence is made out.

                  45. With reference to the absence of allegations under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submitted whether the charge-sheet has reference to any particular material referred to in it and the relevance of it is to be considered at the time when the charge is framed. It would not be desirable to analyse minutely the materials as at that stage the court is primarily concerned with the question as to whether charge is to be framed in respect of any offence and whether prima facie there appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. Therefore, the appellants' stand that the charge-sheet does not refer to any particular material cannot be accepted, more particularly, in view of the specific materials referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent State.”

18. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the law is well-settled that everything is not required to be disclosed in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet is only opinion of the investigating agency and the learned trial court can consider all aspects of the matter either of the prosecution or of the defence. He further submits that there are sufficient materials on the record and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance and in view of that, this petition may kindly be dismissed.

19. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the charge- sheet on which elaborate argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner as well as CBI. Looking into the charge-sheet, it transpires that M/s Shiv Machine Tools participated in the tender floated by the Bokaro Steel Plant dated 03.09.2014 and had submitted its bid on 15.10.2014. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, which is still in progress. The money of Rs.1,15,95,000/- had been paid to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal by M/s Shiv Machine Tools during the period 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016 through bank accounts in the name of his relatives/ friends. In light of the outcome of further investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner who is the Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and got selected in Bokaro Steel Plant Cold Rolling Project Tender No.T&C(M)B320/036C/SPG/314. It has been revealed that the Tender Appraisal Report (TAR) was prepared by Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, M/s Shiv Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai was declared technically and financially eligible. The Tender Appraisal Report was sent to Bokaro Steel Plant in March, 2015 and after negotiation Bokaro Steel Plant decided to award the work to M/s Shiv Machine Tools of Chennai along with consortium partners M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited of Mumbai and M/s Chennai Metco Limited of Chennai. It has been further disclosed in the charge-sheet that Rs.94.39 Lakhs was given by M/s Shiv Machine Tools to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal either in the bank account of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal or in accounts of other persons linked to Sri Upendra Nath Mandal. The details of money transaction are also disclosed in the charge-sheet. Several transactions have been made through Sri Suresh J Shah, who happened to be relative of the petitioner, which has been revealed in the charge-sheet. It has also come in the charge-sheet that Rs.70 Lakhs was transferred from the account of M/s Shiv Machine Tools to the account of Sri Mintu Naskar, Proprietor of Naskar Ceramic on 14.03.2016, 06.06.2016, 07.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. The amount received from M/s Shiv Machine Tools was transferred by Sri Mintu Naskar in the account of Sri Upendra Nath Mandal on the same day or on the next day. In the charge-sheet, it has also been revealed that the investigation further revealed that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical, MECON, Ranchi was having official dealing with M/s Shiv Machine Tools and he was the overall in-charge of the above discussed project being executed by M/s Shiv Machine Tools. In the charge-sheet, it has also been revealed that the equipment/material supplied/installed at both the plants by the accused firms were randomly inspected by the expert of Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFER), Dhanbad and it was revealed that the price paid against the purchase was on exorbitantly higher side. It has been stated at internal page 15 of the charge-sheet that Sri Upendra Nath Manal has obtained money illegally from Sri Ajay Jalan, Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi and Sri Hitesh V. Shah (petitioner), Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai during the process of facilitating the award of contract to accused nos. 2 and 3 and during the execution of work as he was the overall in charge of the aforesaid project being Project Coordinator which is nothing but the quid pro-quo.

20. The Court has perused the order taking cognizance and finds that the learned Court has given cogent reason while taking cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioner. At the stage of issuance of process, the learned Court is mainly concerned with the allegation made in the complaint or evidence led in support of the same and the learned Court is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused or not At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons, detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. In cases instituted on a police report, the learned Court is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused and such an order is based upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Court considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The learned Court is not required to record any reason. However, in the case in hand the learned Court while taking cognizance, has dealt with the allegation and thereafter has been pleased to take cognizance. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

21. In light of the above discussions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and others, IVECO Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and another and Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others (supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI, it is well-settled that at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Court is required to only satisfy and looked into the material and thereafter to pass the order. The High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial at the time of deciding the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If the parameters of quashing the proceeding in light of the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are made out, then only quashing can be made.

22. The judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another (supra), it has been held that the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, so far as the document is concerned, that can be subject-matter at the time of trial and in light of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is having remedy. Thus, that judgment is not helping the petitioner.

23. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another (supra) as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the steps have been disclosed in what circumstances the quashing can be made and if the assertion contained in the charge-sheet labelled against the accused is ruled out then only the proceeding can be quashed. What has been discussed herein above, there are direct materials against the petitioner and in view of that, the guidelines made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is not helping the petitioner and, as such, that judgment is also not in favour of the petitioner.

24. In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another (supra) as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it has been held in that case if the order is perverse the Court can quash the proceeding. Looking into the materials on record and the order taking cognizance, the Court finds that there is no perversity in the said order and, as such, that judgment is not rescuing the petitioner.

25. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (supra) was the case after the trial and entire materials were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court weighing the evidence, has passed the said order. In light of that, the said judgment is also not in favour of the petitioner. Identical is the situation in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delh) (supra) relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as that case was also decided after the trial.

26. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) relied by the learned counsel appearing the petitioner, the subject-matter was the nature of order and it was decided on jurisdictional error and, as such, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner.

27. In the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (supra), relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that judgment was also decided after the trial.

28. Thus, the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the facts and materials on record, are not helping the petitioner.

29. In a case where the investigation is completed, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence for quashing the criminal proceeding and to appreciate the evidence if there that is function of criminal Court i.e. the Special Judge as he is seized with the matter. A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma, IAS and another, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. Paragraphs 16, 20, 31 and 33 of the said judgment read as under:

                  “16. It is thus obvious that ‘the annexures’ were neither part of the police reports nor were relied upon by the Investigating Officer. These documents were produced by the respondents before the High Court along with the writ petitions. By treating ‘the annexures’ and affidavits as evidence and by converting itself into a trial court the High Court pronounced the respondents to be innocent and quashed the proceedings. The least we can say is that this was not at all a case where High Court should have interfered in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This Court has repeatedly held that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts. The High Court, under the circumstances, could not have assumed jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under the law. Since the High Court strongly relied upon “the annexures” in support of its findings, we may briefly examine these documents.

                  20. We do not wish to express any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties based on their respective appreciation of material on the record. We have quoted “the annexures”, the inferences drawn by the High Court and the factual assessment of Mr Sibal, only to show that the High Court fell into grave error in appreciating the documents produced by the respondents along with the writ petitions and further delving into disputed questions of facts in its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

                  31. Finally, we are at a loss to understand as to why and on what reasoning the High Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at a stage when the Special Judge was seized of the matter. He had heard the arguments on the question of cognisance and had reserved the orders. The High Court did not even permit the Special Judge to pronounce the orders.

                  33. The above order was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court but the High Court refused to be persuaded to adopt the same course. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under Section 173 CrPC has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties we thought it proper to deal with all the aspects of the case.”

30. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and further considering the parameters of quashing, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

31. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.