Existence of prima facie material in charge-sheet precludes quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner, a retired Sub-Inspector, was the Investigating Officer in a 2005 criminal case (Crime No. 203/2005) where he seized gold, diamonds, electronic items, and cash from one Amarnath Benerjee.

After Benerjee’s acquittal, he sought the return of the seized articles, but it was discovered that no entry of these items existed in the Malkhana (property room) register.

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 382/2019) was registered in 2019 under Section 409 of the IPC alleging criminal breach of trust by a public servant.

The petitioner previously challenged the FIR in CRMP No. 1547 of 2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the charge-sheet.

After the police filed the charge-sheet (No. 324/2020) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, took cognizance on 21.12.2022, the petitioner moved this petition to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Section 409 IPC should be quashed on the grounds of inordinate delay (14 years) and lack of prima facie evidence.

2. Whether the high court can exercise its inherent powers to quash a charge-sheet when the allegations involve disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence.

The Court primarily considered Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant.

It also applied the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now corresponding to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which dictate that such powers should not be used to adjudicate matters requiring the appreciation of evidence or trial of facts.

The petitioner argued that the responsibility for the seized goods lay with the Malkhana In-Charge and that the articles were produced before the CJM in 2005 along with the original charge-sheet, ending his liability.

However, the State contended that the property register showed no entry for the items and the petitioner failed to provide an explanation when queried during the investigation.

The Court observed that the charge-sheet disclosed prima facie material indicating the commission of a cognizable offence.

Specifically, the Court reasoned that the allegations regarding the missing ornaments and the lack of official record entry are matters that require a detailed appreciation of evidence.

Because a trial is necessary to determine the veracity of these claims, the High Court determined it was inappropriate to quash the proceedings at this preliminary stage.

The Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the cognizance order dated 21.12.2022 and the pending criminal proceedings in Case No. 18252/2022.