Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1992 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1992 (4) TMI 244 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Allegations of criminal breach of trust and abetment under sections 409, 109, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on a private complaint filed by an Advocate and Standing Counsel against multiple appellants.

Judgment Summary:

The Supreme Court granted special leave in a case where the respondent, an Advocate, filed a private complaint alleging criminal offenses against the appellants. The complaint accused the appellants of embezzlement and criminal breach of trust related to a loan transaction and a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) security bond. The respondent claimed that the debt became time-barred, and the appellants failed to credit the full amount to his account, leading to the criminal allegations.

The Court analyzed the terms of the security bond and the actions of the bank in adjusting the outstanding debt from the F.D.R. at maturity. It clarified that while the remedy to enforce the debt through a suit may be barred by limitation, the right to the debt itself continues to exist. The Court emphasized that the time-barred debt does not cease to exist, and the creditor has the right to adjust the debt from any payment made by the debtor or from any security held.

The Court found that the appellants acted in accordance with the terms of the contract and did not commit criminal breach of trust or misappropriation. It highlighted that the bank had the F.D.R. as security for the debt and lawfully appropriated the amount due from the principal debtor. The Court criticized the Magistrate for mechanically issuing process against all the appellants without determining if a prima facie case was established, leading to unnecessary harassment.

The Court stressed that the judicial process should not be used for oppression or harassment. It noted that complaints should be carefully examined to avoid becoming a tool for personal vendettas. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint, finding that the respondent had abused the legal process without a prima facie case to support the criminal allegations.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that legal complaints are not used for personal vendettas and that the judicial process is not abused for harassment purposes.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates