Jharkhand HC Refuses to Quash BSNL Job Fraud Case, Terms Dispute Fit for Trial
(Cr. M.P. No. 18 of 2023)
By Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust in connection with purported fraudulent claims of employment under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
The case arose from a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by multiple petitioners assailing the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated November 1, 2022, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2019 (G.R. Case No. 1112 of 2022), whereby cognizance had been taken for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC based on a chargesheet submitted by the police.
The prosecution’s case, as noted by the Court, was that the petitioners, in connivance with certain officials of BSNL and its predecessor, the Department of Telecommunications, allegedly forged documents to project themselves as Temporary Status Mazdoors (TMS) falsely and, by using such forged documents as genuine, committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy. The matter had earlier been agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, where BSNL had alleged that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were forged, and following a vigilance enquiry, several officers and TMS were found prima facie involved, leading to registration of the FIR and subsequent investigation culminating in submission of chargesheet against the petitioners.
Assailing the proceedings, the petitioners contended that the case was manifestly frivolous, vexatious, and instituted with an ulterior motive, particularly in light of BSNL having failed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequent writ proceedings. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., and Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, to argue that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained in the absence of ingredients of cheating or forgery, and that mere breach of contract would not constitute an offence unless fraudulent intent existed at inception. It was further contended that even if the allegations were accepted, no offence under the invoked provisions was made out.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that there were specific and direct allegations against the petitioners, which were substantiated during the investigation, leading to the submission of a charge sheet and the taking of cognisance. It was further contended that the petitioners had not cooperated with the trial proceedings and that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, ought not to interfere at this stage.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, upon consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, declined to interfere, observing that it is a settled principle that at the stage of taking cognisance, the Magistrate cannot add or subtract offences from the chargesheet, and such issues can only be examined at the stage of framing of charge. The Court further noted that, upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had found sufficient material supporting the allegations, and there was no averment of any illegality or misconduct in the investigation process. It was also reiterated that in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of allegations or conduct a mini-trial, nor can it evaluate the defence of the accused at this stage.
Holding that the contentions raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication during trial, and that no case for quashing of proceedings was made out, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition as being devoid of merit.
