2007 (5) TMI 681 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves charges under Section 120-B of the IPC and other related sections against the petitioner, challenging the order on charge dated 22-03-2006 and charge dated 04-04-2006.

Charge under Section 120-B of the IPC:
The trial court charged the petitioner for offenses punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with other co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as an abettor and conspirator, was involved in dishonestly misappropriating money at the instance of other accused, resulting in undue pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs. 596.11 lakhs from the bank. The defense argued that the charges lacked essential ingredients to hold the petitioner guilty and failed to establish a vital link between the petitioner and other accused, emphasizing the absence of any dishonest intention or motive on the petitioner's part.

Sustainability of Charges under Other Sections:
The judgment also considered the charges framed under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. The defense contended that the circumstances against the petitioner were solely based on her relationship with one of the main accused and her involvement in opening bank accounts used by her father to siphon off funds, which were insufficient to establish a grave suspicion warranting charges against her. The court referred to legal precedents emphasizing the need for a clear case and active role in inducement to sustain charges under relevant sections.

Conclusion:
The court found that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, as the allegations in the chargesheet failed to establish a grave suspicion of her involvement in the offenses. The court concluded that the trial court's order charging the petitioner could not be sustained based on the available materials and allegations. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the charges framed against the petitioner-accused were set aside.