9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a criminal prosecution against two accused persons by the Bombay High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to appeals in the Supreme Court challenging the decision. Details of the Judgment: Creation of Trust and Allegations: - A trust named "Srikrishna Madhava Trust" was created by Rajamata Smt. Vijaya Raje Scindia with four trustees, including Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia, Col. Eknath Trimbak Patil, and Kumar Shanbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre. - Allegations arose regarding the creation of false tenancy documents for a flat in Bombay in favor of Madhavrao's wife, leading to a complaint and criminal proceedings under sections 406, 467, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. High Court Decision and Appeals: - The High Court quashed the prosecution against two accused persons but upheld it for the remaining two. - Appeals were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision, emphasizing the relationship between the settler and the accused being mother and son. Legal Arguments: - Defense argued that the criminal proceedings lacked basis and amounted to a civil wrong, highlighting that the trustee was authorized to manage trust affairs and the tenancy was legitimate. - Prosecution contended it was a breach of trust constituting both a civil wrong and a criminal offense, citing relevant provisions of the Indian Trust Act. Supreme Court Ruling: - The Supreme Court applied the test of whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offense and considered the special features of the case. - It concluded that the case primarily constituted a civil wrong, with insufficient elements for criminal offenses, leading to the quashing of the prosecution against the two accused persons. - Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1986 was allowed, quashing the prosecution against Madhavrao and Russi Homi Avari, while Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1986 was dismissed. In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of quashing the criminal prosecution against two accused persons based on the lack of sufficient evidence for criminal offenses, emphasizing the civil nature of the alleged wrongs in the trust matter.
|
