Existence of Prima Facie Evidence of Criminal Misappropriation Precludes Quashing of Charge Sheet Under Section 482 CrPC

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Purbashree Printing House, was charge-sheeted in connection with C.M.’s Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 09/2017.

The FIR, lodged by the Labour Commissioner, alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating, and misappropriation of government funds involving his predecessors and the petitioner.

Allegations included irregularities in the tender process: a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued without specifying quantities or rates.

No tender evaluation committee was formed, and the petitioner allegedly filed multiple tenders under different house names to fix the process.

It was further alleged that the petitioner was paid approximately ₹64.89 Crores, an amount significantly higher than the market rates quoted by the Government Printing Press.

The petitioner sought quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC, arguing a lack of evidence regarding a "prior meeting of minds".

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which dictate that proceedings should only be quashed if the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute a prima facie offence.

Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. (2022), which emphasizes that the principal ingredient of Section 120-B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence, which must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.

The Court analyzed the surrounding circumstances of the tender process to determine the existence of a prima facie case. It noted that the NIT lacked essential details like quantity and value, and the absence of a formal evaluation committee suggested procedural bypasses.

The Court observed the massive discrepancy between the payments made to the petitioner and the standard government rates—specifically, a perceived illegal "squeezing out" of over ₹64 Crores from the exchequer.

While the petitioner argued that there was no "meeting of minds" proved, the Court reasoned that the allegation of the petitioner filing alternative tenders under different names to support his own bid suggested collusive conduct.

Applying the Bhajan Lal criteria, the Court found that the allegations were not "absurd" or "inherently improbable" but rather presented substantive questions of fact that must be deliberated upon during a full trial.

The Court held that the trial court is the appropriate forum to deliberate upon these allegations and that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet is not warranted. The petition was dismissed.