VINOD RAGHUVANSHI versus AJAY ARORA AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 23-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 256 
VINOD RAGHUVANSHI 
V. 
AJAY ARORA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1477 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Excise 
auction - Liquor contract awarded to partnership firm -
C Complaint made by respondent no. 1 that while negotiating 
and accepting the contract, partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 
was utilised, wherein respondent no. 1 had also invested a 
huge amount, but the said deed was subsequently replaced 
by a forged/fabricated deed dated 6.3.2003 in which 
D respondent no. 1 was not a partner - Magistrate registered 
case against appellant-District Excise Officer and two others 
u/ss.420 and 120-8 - Application filed by appellant u/s.482 
CrPC for quashing of the complaint - Dismissed by High 
Court - Propriety - Held: Proper - Serious allegations of 
E cheating by replacing the partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 by 
a forged partnership deed dated 6.3.2003 with the connivance 
of the appellant and other officers in his office were made -
Particulars were furnished to establish that the partnership 
deed dated 6. 3. 2003 was a forged document - Reports 
F submitted by the Addi. Excise Commissioner and the Deputy 
Commissioner of Excise made it evident that replacement of 
partnership deed could have not been possible without the 
connivance of appellant and others - Question of delay in 
lodging complaint totally immaterial since all the facts came 
to the notice of the complainant at a much belated stage when 
G the report etc. were placed by the State Authorities before the 
High Court - For taking cognizance or issuing process in a 
complaint case, the Court must have merely a prima facie 
satisfaction that there is some material on record to proceed 
H 
256 
VINOD RAGHUVANSHI v. AJAY ARORA 
257 
against the accused - In the instant case, the Magistrate 
A 
issued process after being fully satisfied that some material 
was available on record to proceed against the appellant and 
others - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420 and 120-8. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal 
8 
proceedings - Quashing of - Scope - Held: An investigation 
should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have 
some substance - When a prosecution at the initial stage is 
to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether 
the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish 
C 
the offence - At this stage neither the court can embark upon 
an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely 
to be established by evidence or nor the court should judge 
the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations 
made therein. 
D 
A partnership firm constituted with the intention to 
carry on the business of liquor was reconstituted and a 
deed dated 5.3.2002 was executed inducting among 
others the respondent no.1 as a partner. The firm 
participated in the excise auctions and being a 
successful bidder, the liquor contract was awarded to it. 
Respondent no. 1 filed complaint alleging that while 
negotiating and accepting the liquor contract for the year 
2003-2004, the partnership deed dated 5.3.2002 was 
utilised, wherein respondent no.1 had also invested a 
huge amount, but the said deed was subsequently 
replaced by a forged/fabricated deed dated 6.3.2003 in 
which the respondent no.1 was not a partner. 
Respondent no.1 also filed representation before the 
Excise Commissioner. 'BKV', the Addi. Excise G 
Commissioner, conducted inquiry and submitted report 
dated 2-12-2005 to the effect that the appellant, being a 
District Excise Officer, was responsible for replacement 
E 
F 
of the partnership deed as it was not practically possible 
to do so without his connivance. 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Subsequently, respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition 
before the High Court seeking direction for initiation of 
departmental proceedings against the appellant on the 
basis of inquiry report dated 2.12.2005, however, the case 
was referred to the Excise Commissioner for further 
B inquiry. 'DRJ', the Deputy Commissioner of Excise 
submitted inquiry report dated 1.5.2007 recording 
findings similar to the report dated 2.12.2005 and 
expressing the view that the appellant being the head of 
the District Excise Office, Bhopal, was indirectly 
c responsible. The State Government, however, informed 
the Excise Commissioner that no ground was found to 
initiate departmenta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.