Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1291 - SC - Indian LawsCriminal conspiracy - Dishonest application for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction - commission of offences Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420/471 Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The charges framed against the accused-Appellant, it may be repeated, are Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Sections 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that in NIKHIL MERCHANT VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. 2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT the charges framed against the accused were also Under Sections 120B read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 (Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988) and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In para 28 of the judgment in NIKHIL MERCHANT VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. 2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in which the charges were brought against the accused this Court had come to the conclusion that The basic intention of the accused in this case appears to have been to misrepresent the financial status of the Company, M/s. Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order to avail of the credit facilities to an extent to which the Company was not entitled. In other words, the main intention of the Company and its officers was to cheat the Bank and induce it to part with additional amounts of credit to which the Company was not otherwise entitled. The Court, thereafter, took into account the fact that the dispute between the parties had been settled/compromised and such compromise formed a part of the decree passed in the suit filed by the bank. After holding that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding was not contingent on the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and taking into account the conclusion recorded in para 28 of the judgment, as noticed above, the Court ultimately concluded that in the facts of the case it would be justified to quash the criminal proceeding. At the very outset a detailed narration of the charges against the accused-Appellant has been made. The Appellant has been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the offence Under Section 13(1)(d). He is also substantively charged Under Section 420 (compoundable with the leave of the Court) and Section 471 (non-compoundable). A careful consideration of the facts of the case would indicate that unlike in Nikhil Merchant (supra) no conclusion can be reached that the substratum of the charges against the accused-Appellant in the present case is one of cheating - The offences are certainly more serious; they are not private in nature. The charge of conspiracy is to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused has also been charged for commission of the substantive offence Under Section 471 Indian Penal Code. If the High Court has taken the view that the exclusion spelt out in GIAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ANOTHER 2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT applies to the present case and on that basis had come to the conclusion that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised to quash the criminal case against the accused, we cannot find any justification to interfere with the said decision. The appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.
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.
|