While quashing a criminal case registered against a lawyer accused of sending a substitute in place of the accused, the Patna High Court has held that proceeding on conjecture alone, in a case where the petitioner is a member of the legal profession, would render the process of this Court itself an instrument of oppression.

The petitioner approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Ansul held, “It is precisely because these are serious charges that the absence of any admissible, independent material against the petitioner becomes all the more significant. It must be recorded, and recorded clearly, that even if the entirety of the prosecution case is accepted at face value, as this Court is required to do in the exercise of its quashing jurisdiction, there is no legally cognizable material before the Court that would connect the petitioner to these offences. The prosecution case against the petitioner is built wholly upon an inadmissible statement. That is not a foundation; it is conjecture. Proceeding on conjecture alone, in a case where the petitioner is a member of the legal profession, would render the process of this Court itself an instrument of oppression.”

Advocate Priyanka Singh represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A person named Amod Shah @ Suman Kumar was apprehended. Upon inquiry, it transpired that he had appeared in court in place of a wanted accused. The CCTV footage of the court premises disclosed that on July 11, 2023, a person entered the area reserved for the accused inside the courtroom. Upon further questioning, Suman Kumar @ Amod Shah stated that in some old case, the details of which he could not disclose, the petitioner had asked him to appear before the court, and he had accordingly gone to the courtroom. The District Prosecution Officer and the Assistant District Prosecution Officer separately confirmed that no bail application had been filed on behalf of Suman Kumar @ Amod Shah in the matter. Upon the basis of the foregoing, the police suspected that a forgery had been committed, and registered the case.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution case against the petitioner rested entirely and exclusively upon the statement made by the co-accused Suman Kumar @ Amod Shah during police inquiry. “That statement, made to a police officer, is inadmissible in evidence under the law. It cannot constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner. Beyond this statement, the records would show that there is not a shred of independent material connecting the petitioner to the offences alleged”, it added.

The Bench found that no CCTV footage placed him at the scene, no financial transaction, no call record and no corroborating circumstance of any kind was cited in the FIR against him. The FIR recorded that no bail application was filed by the petitioner on behalf of Suman Kumar @ Amod Shah. “This admitted fact directly contradicts the very basis on which the petitioner has been implicated”, the Bench stated.

The Bench further held, “The offences charged include Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which are serious charges going to the integrity of court proceedings. This Court is alive to that gravity.”

The Bench concluded the matter by noting that the prosecution's case against the petitioner was built wholly upon an inadmissible statement and conjecture. Thus, exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), the High Court quashed the FIR as well as the proceedings pending before the concerned Court.

Cause Title: Sakaldeo Kumar Mandal @ Sakaldeo Mandal v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No.51350 of 2023)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Priyanka Singh, Umesh Prasad, Bihari Sen, Harsh Kumar

Opposite Party: Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Patna High CourtJustice Ansul

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.