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 - 2014 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (4) TMI 1291 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to quash criminal proceedings by the High Court.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and fraud.
3. Application of Section 482 CrPC for quashing non-compoundable offenses.
4. Comparison with previous judgments (Nikhil Merchant, Gian Singh, Narendra Lal Jain).
5. Settlement between parties and its impact on criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Quash Criminal Proceedings by the High Court:
The appellant, the second accused in a criminal case, challenged the High Court of Kerala's decision dated 25.06.2013, which refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Fraud:
The allegations against the appellant included entering into a criminal conspiracy with other accused to obtain undue pecuniary advantage. The specific charges involved dishonestly applying for a car loan with forged documents, sanctioning loans without proper authorization, and misrepresenting the value of collateral security. The charges framed against the appellant were under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 420/471 IPC.

3. Application of Section 482 CrPC for Quashing Non-Compoundable Offenses:
The appellant's counsel argued that all dues to the bank had been settled out of court, and the bank had acknowledged no further claims against the appellant. Citing previous judgments, the counsel contended that the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. However, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the decision in Nikhil Merchant was based on its specific facts and that heinous and serious offenses, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed even if settled between parties.

4. Comparison with Previous Judgments:
The court examined previous judgments, including Nikhil Merchant, Gian Singh, and Narendra Lal Jain. In Nikhil Merchant, the charges were similar, and the court had quashed the proceedings based on a settlement. However, in Gian Singh, the court emphasized that heinous and serious offenses, especially under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, should not be quashed even if settled. The court also noted that in Narendra Lal Jain, the charges were under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, which are compoundable, unlike the current case involving non-compoundable offenses.

5. Settlement Between Parties and Its Impact on Criminal Proceedings:
The court acknowledged that the appellant had settled the dues with the bank, but there was no mention of settlement regarding the criminal case in the bank's acknowledgment. The court reiterated that quashing non-compoundable offenses under Section 482 CrPC depends on the facts of each case and must consider the nature of the offenses. The court concluded that the charges in the present case were serious and not private in nature, involving criminal conspiracy under the Prevention of Corruption Act and non-compoundable offenses under IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the charges against the appellant were serious and involved public interest. The appeal was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings against the appellant were upheld.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates