Click the Play button to listen to article

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the 2018 FIR against a man named in connection with an alleged sting operation targeting the then Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, holding that “the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the rigours and uncertainty of criminal proceedings in the absence of prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences”.

The Court noted that the FIR merely alleged that the news channel's CEO had informed the complainant that the petitioner could assist him in securing an appointment with the then Chief Minister, while the investigation had subsequently concluded without finding any incriminating material against him.

Justice Alok Mahra passed the judgment in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 386, 388 and 120-B of the IPC. 

The FIR was lodged by a person claiming to be a reporter with the news channel 'Samachar Plus'. According to the FIR, the channel's CEO had assigned him the task of conducting a sting operation on the then Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was among the persons whom the CEO allegedly informed the reporter could assist him in securing an appointment with the Chief Minister. The informant stated that he met the then Chief Minister but, being apprehensive, could not conduct the proposed sting operation. He thereafter alleged that the CEO and another person threatened that if he failed to make the sting operation successful, his career would be ruined and he would be killed. 

The investigation culminated in a chargesheet against the channel's CEO on March 25, 2019. During the investigation, as many as ten Investigating Officers were changed. However, the petitioner remained without a charge sheet.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific overt act or role had been attributed to him in the FIR. It was therefore contended that permitting the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law and cause undue harassment. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu v. State of Bihar concerning prolonged investigation and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. 

The State submitted that the chargesheet had been filed against the CEO and one another on March 25, 2019. However, on instructions and on the basis of the material disclosed in its counter-affidavit, the State fairly submitted that no incriminating material had been found against the petitioner and that he had not been chargesheeted. 

The Bench specifically noted that “the mere assertion that the CEO had informed the informant that the petitioner would assist him in securing an appointment with the then Chief Minister, without any further allegation of threat, extortion, putting the informant in fear of injury, or participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy, cannot by itself constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner”.

The Court attached particular significance to the fact that the investigation had already concluded and had resulted in a chargesheet against two other accused, “while the investigating agency despite having changed ten Investigating Officers during the course of the investigation, has admittedly not collected any incriminating material against the petitioner”. It therefore held that “there is no material before this Court which may prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged in the F.I.R.” 

The Bench also noted that the FIR dated back to 2018, while the chargesheet against the other two accused had been filed as of March, 2019. “Despite the passage of considerable time thereafter, the investigating agency has not collected any material against the petitioner. In such circumstances, keeping the petitioner under the perpetual apprehension of criminal prosecution, without there being any material capable of sustaining such proceedings, would be contrary to the principles of fairness and would amount to subjecting him to an indefinite and unwarranted criminal process”, the Court held.

The Court clarified that it was conscious of the settled principle that, while considering quashing of an FIR, the Court ordinarily does not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or appreciate disputed questions of fact. However, it held that the present case stood on a “different footing” because the investigation had been completed, the persons against whom material was found had been chargesheeted, and the State had fairly conceded that no incriminating material whatsoever had been found against the petitioner. 

The Bench consequently held that there was “no legitimate basis for permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner merely on the basis of a reference to his name in the F.I.R., particularly when no specific role has been attributed to him.” It also noted that the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the admitted absence of incriminating material, assumed significance in light of the fundamental right to a “fair and expeditious criminal process” guaranteed under Article 21. 

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. 

Case: Mritunjay Kumar Mishra Versus State Of Uttarakhand [WPCRL/2092/2018]

Click Here To Read/Download Oder

Full View

Tags: