2009 (3) TMI 1100 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the criminal complaint and charge sheet.
2. Application of Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings.
3. Allegations and evidence against the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of the criminal complaint and charge sheet

The appeals were filed against the common judgment dated 01.03.2007 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the petition for quashing the complaint against Accused Nos. 1 to 9. The complaint alleged offences u/s 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court held that the allegations made in the complaint did not warrant quashing.

Issue 2: Application of Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings

The appellants argued that the criminal complaint was a counterblast to the insolvency petition filed by Accused No. 1 and that the matter was essentially civil in nature. They contended that the High Court failed to apply its mind and did not consider that the rice mill was a sole proprietary concern run by Accused No. 1, and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 had no involvement in the business. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 482 CrPC, referencing several precedents including *Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishna*, *Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi*, and *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*. The Court reiterated that the inherent power u/s 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Issue 3: Allegations and evidence against the accused

The Supreme Court analyzed the allegations in the charge sheet, noting that most were directed against Accused No. 1. The allegations against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, and Accused Nos. 6 to 8 were found to be vague and lacking specific roles. The Court held that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against these appellants. Consequently, the proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, and Accused Nos. 6 to 8 were quashed. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the criminal proceedings and did not affect any civil liability.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed to the extent of quashing the proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, and Accused Nos. 6 to 8. No costs were ordered.