High Court refuses to quash FIR, but directs urgent compliance with Supreme Court CCTV-preservation directions after noting lacunae in police footage
PROPERTYMEN REALTY PVT. LTD. & ORS. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND, W.P.(CR.) NO. 402 OF 2023.
Facts: The petitioners (Propertymen Realty Pvt. Ltd. and four individuals) challenged Bankmore P.S. FIR No. 97/2023 (dated 10.05.2023) registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The informant alleged the petitioners solicited payment for 9 flats (total consideration ~₹1.93 crore) and also took a corporate loan of ₹50 lakh; construction was alleged to be slow and five cheques (₹10 lakh each) were later dishonoured. The petitioners contend they filed a complaint in Kolkata (03.03.2023) and that various dealings (mortgage/memorandum) pre-existed; they allege Dhanbad police illegally detained two petitioners after they came to obtain bail in a Section 138 NI Act matter, coerced them to sign a compromise/MoU and obtain cheques by police connivance, and failed to serve Section 41A notices properly. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, return of 20 cheques and a direction restraining the informant from acting on two agreements said to be signed at the police station. The Supreme Court earlier granted short-term interim protection and permitted withdrawal of a direct Article 32 petition with liberty to approach the High Court.
Issue(s):
1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings disclose a prima facie/cognizable offence or are mala fide, frivolous or instituted with ulterior motive warranting quashing under Article 226 / Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Whether allegations that the police coerced the petitioners into signing the MoU and obtaining cheques (including detention and torture) make out a case of police high-handedness that justifies quashing or CBI investigation.
3. What is the relevance of parallel proceedings (Section 138 NI Act complaint / criminal complaint in Kolkata) to the quashing petition?
4. Whether the police complied with custodial / procedural safeguards (e.g., Section 41A) and preserved relevant CCTV footage as directed.
Rule: The Court applied established principles restricting quashing powers, the FIR must be read on its face and, if it discloses prima facie cognizable offences, investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed (State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha; Dineshbhai Patel). Where disputed questions of fact or competing documentary evidence exist (and statutory presumptions under Section 139 NI Act apply on admitted cheques), the High Court should normally refrain from acting as an appellate/investigative forum at the initial stage. Authorities on forgery and making false documents (Parminder Kaur) and on presumptions in cheque dishonour cases (Rajeshbhai Patel) were also applied. The Court further considered recent guidance that in exceptional cases the Court must look “in between the lines” where multiple FIRs or clear mala fides are shown (Mahmood Ali), and Supreme-Court directions on CCTV preservation/maintenance (Paramvir Singh Saini).
Analysis: The High Court examined the FIR and the material on record. It noted admitted facts in the petition that the petitioners received ₹75 lakh and had taken/returned the ₹50 lakh loan, facts that indicate disputed commercial transactions. The existence of two stamp papers and differing signatures/documents raised factual disputes as to genuineness and benefit, which cannot be resolved at the quashing stage. The Court observed that the petitioners had recourse in Kolkata (a complaint filed on 03.03.2023) and that the Section 138 NI Act presumption (on admitted cheque issuance) remains for the accused to rebut. Regarding the coercion allegation, police examined the Notary Public who stated both parties appeared before him and the MoU was affidavited; the Court found the allegations of police connivance and fabrication unsupported by admissible material on record at this stage. The Court stressed settled doctrine: where prima facie material discloses a cognizable offence and disputed factual questions exist, the High Court should not stifle legitimate prosecution by exercising Section 482/Article 226 to quash. The Court was, however, critical of the admitted absence of CCTV footage for 31.05.2023–01.06.2023 and treated that deficiency seriously in light of Supreme Court directions requiring robust CCTV preservation.
Conclusion / Order: The writ petition was dismissed, the High Court refused to quash FIR No. 97/2023 or the criminal proceedings, holding prima facie case material existed and disputed factual issues required investigation/trial. Interim protection previously granted was vacated. The Court recorded concern at missing CCTV footage and directed the State/DGP to ensure (i) installation of CCTV in every police station covering entry/exit points, lock-ups, corridors and specified areas, (ii) capacity to preserve footage for 18 months (or best commercially available capacity immediately but not below one year), and (iii) compliance within three months; a copy of this order was to be communicated to the Secretary Home and DGP, Jharkhand. The Court also directed that the cheques not be deposited pending further orders and required personal affidavits from certain police officers; it left investigation and trial processes to proceed in accordance with law.
