2019 (9) TMI 1633 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 466, 477-A of IPC - framing of charge under Sections 120B, 419, 466 477A of IPC - criminal conspiracy - applicant became the holder of locker by deletion of name of Mr. B.L. Agrawal and he was operating the same - Manipulation of bank documents - HELD THAT - According to the evidence present in the charge-sheet, there is no such evidence and no such admission that any document was forged to incorporate the petitioner as the holder of the locker. On the contrary, there is evidence that anti dated application was filed in the bank and bank Officer obliged the client by making entries as desired by the parties. Further, the charge under Section 466 of IPC can be made only against the public servant or any person acting on his behalf. The petitioner is not the bank Officer. The evidence that the petitioner gave his signature for the operation of bank locker is not an act of forgery. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 466 of IPC. Similarly the person who can be prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 477A of IPC must be a clerk, officer or servant or employed or acting in that capacity and any private person cannot be prosecuted for the same. The prosecution case is this, that the bank documents have been manipulated and on the basis of admission made by the Bank Officer Mr. Antony Samy, it is clear that he received the application for deletion and addition of names and acted accordingly, as was prayed in the application. Therefore, there is no substance for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 477A of IPC - the material in the prosecution case left only to this extent that unaccounted money in cash form was found in the locker held by this applicant in locker No.240A of bank of Baroda, Raipur. The prosecution has traced its connection to Mr. B.L. Agrawal but as per the submission made by the counsel for petitioner, Mr. B.L. Agrawal has been exonerated by the Income Department. CBI has investigated this case subsequent to the raid conducted by the Income Department and have drawn conclusion for prosecuting this petitioner for the offences as aforementioned. This Court after considering on the evidence present in the charge-sheet against this petitioner, has drawn its conclusion that there is no substance for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted - petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Legitimacy of charges framed under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC.
3. Validity of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities.
4. Jurisdiction of CBI to investigate and prosecute the case.
5. Application of precedents and legal principles from previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against him in Crime No.RC/1242010A0009 of 2012 by the CBI, arguing that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and law. The petitioner contended that the initiation of the proceedings was not in accordance with law, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in *State of U.P. vs Suresh Chand* and the Gujarat High Court in *Soni Dinesh Kumar Dahiya vs State of Gujarat*.

2. Legitimacy of Charges Under IPC Sections:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC. He argued that there was no evidence of fraud, impersonation, or manipulation of bank records. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the rent receipts were in the name of Shri R.D. Goyal and that co-accused B.L. Agrawal never used his original signature while operating the locker. The counsel also argued that the petitioner never visited the bank for operating the locker, as evidenced by CCTV footage, and that the application for changing the locker ownership was anti-dated.

3. Validity of Petitioner's Involvement:
The petitioner argued that the cash found in the locker belonged to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Mamta Agrawal, who had admitted in her statement that the money was withdrawn from her account. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime and that the confessional statement of Antony Samy exonerated him. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgments in *Satish Mehra vs State of NCIT* and *Radheshyam vs State of West Bengal*, arguing that prosecution on the same facts and circumstances was not permissible after exoneration by the Income Tax authorities.

4. Jurisdiction of CBI:
The petitioner argued that the CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the case under Sections 5 & 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The counsel for CBI, however, submitted that the investigation was fully conducted, and incriminating evidence was found, justifying the filing of the charge-sheet.

5. Application of Precedents and Legal Principles:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal*, which held that criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances could not continue if the person was exonerated on merits in adjudication proceedings. The court noted that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than in adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 466, and 477A of IPC. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities was not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings, including the charge-sheet filed by the CBI, were quashed. The court emphasized the principle that criminal prosecution cannot continue if the person is exonerated on merits in adjudication proceedings, as established in *Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal*.