Charges under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC quashed absent prima facie evidence of misappropriation.

CAPART sanctioned ₹45,000 on 20 September 1993 to Seva Aashram, Sehan, Vaishali, for implementing a project concerning 30 social animators, and released the entire amount on 22 February 1994.

Subsequently, an evaluation allegedly found that the organisation was not functioning at its registered address and that no information regarding implementation of the project was available, leading to allegations of misappropriation of public funds.

After an inquiry, the names of seven persons, including the four petitioners, allegedly surfaced, and Goraul P.S. Case No. 37 of 2003 was registered on 12 March 2003 for offences under Sections 406/34, 409/34 and 420/34 IPC.

The learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners on 20 May 2014.

In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners relied upon a Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that the sanctioned amount had been utilised and a letter dated 7 July 2003 from the Block Development Officer, Cheharakala, reporting no discrepancy in utilisation of the funds.

The trial had remained pending for approximately 23 years, with no witness having been examined.

1. Whether the materials on record disclosed the prima facie ingredients of offences under Sections 406/34, 409/34 and 420/34 IPC against the petitioners so as to sustain the order framing charge dated 20 May 2014.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order framing charge and the consequential criminal proceedings in light of the Chartered Accountant’s certificate, the BDO’s report and the prolonged pendency of the case.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to examine the legality of the order framing charge and the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

The prosecution allegations invoked Sections 406 and 409 IPC concerning criminal breach of trust, Section 420 IPC concerning cheating, and Section 34 IPC concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The governing principle applied was that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the available material does not disclose the prima facie legal ingredients of the alleged offences or where continuation of the proceedings would not be justified on the admitted or undisputed material before the Court.

The prosecution case was founded on the alleged non-utilisation and misappropriation of the ₹45,000 CAPART grant.

However, the petitioners produced a Chartered Accountant’s certificate certifying utilisation of the entire amount and a BDO report stating that no discrepancy had been noticed in the utilisation of the funds.

The learned APP did not dispute the authenticity or relevance of these documents.

In view of this material, the Court concluded that the essential prima facie ingredients of criminal breach of trust, breach of trust by a public servant or agent, cheating, and common intention were not established against the petitioners.

The fact that the case had remained pending for nearly 23 years without examination of any witness further supported interference under Section 482 CrPC.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court along with the lower-court record, if any.