9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are husband and wife, being Ranjit Satardekar and his wife Vijaya Satardekar. An FIR dated 25.2.2002 was filed against these respondents by one Rukmini Narvekar (the appellant herein) under various provisions of the IPC including Sections 409, 420, 423, etc. A true copy of this FIR is annexed as P6 in this appeal. The gist of this FIR is that the complainant is an illiterate person and so was her husband Raghunath Narvekar. It is alleged that the respondent Ranjit Satardekar, who is an advocate, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant and her deceased husband to place their signatures and thumb impression on some papers in the office of the Executive Magistrate at Sawantwadi without explaining the contents thereof, and falsely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty of the complainant was purported to have been sold away by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate by deceit and misrepresentation for which he deserved to be punished under Sections 409, 420 and other provisions of the IPC. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet against both Ranjit Satardekar and Smt.Vijaya Satardekar as well as two others. Thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged in the chargesheet and process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji under Sections 468/471/420/120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Against the order taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused, they filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to have been watered down somewhat in the subsequent decisions of the larger Benches of this Court e.g. the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005(4) SCC 370 (vide para 32) [JT 2005(3)SC 195] as well as the decision of the three-Judge Bench in K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. 2002(8) SCC 87 (vide para 30 to 33). 11. The law as to when criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution has been laid down by this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 (vide para 102 and 103) [JT 1990(4) SC 650]. This decision has been foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to Shri Lalit this proves that the sale deed of 1991 was in the knowledge of the complainant throughout. 14. We have perused the evidence of Dhananjay Narvekar in the Civil Suit and we have also perused the judgment in the Civil Suit, against which we are informed an appeal is pending. The evidence of Dhananjay Narvekar is a very detailed one and some contradictory statements appear to have been be given by him e.g. that the amount was paid by Ranjit Satardekar as a loan, and this contradicts the version that the money was paid as a sale consideration. In the judgment of the Civil Court it has been held that undue influence cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances it cannot be said that at this stage the proceedings in the cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eems to support the view canvassed by by Shri Rohatgi, it may be also pointed out that in paragraph 29 of the same decision it has been observed that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Thus we have to reconcile paragraphs 16 and 23 of the decision in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra). We should also keep in mind that it is well settled that a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as a Euclid fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, preposterous or concocted. 19. However, in this case it cannot be said that the evidence in the Civil Suit which was produced by the defence before the trial court established convincingly that the prosecution case is totally absurd or preposterous. In our opinion this is a matter which has to be looked into by the trial Court. 20. In Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2008(9) Scale 166 this Court referred to various decisions on the point of quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. In this decision this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, though on the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie an offence was made out. Thus quashing of the criminal case was done considering all the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
