TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Universal by charging rates much below the prevailing market rates and obtained or agreed to obtain illegal gratification from M/s DLF as quid pro quo. The total bribe amount was 1.10 crores. During the course of investigation and subsequent search conducted at the residence of the respondent's son A.M. Sharan who was at that time Commissioner (Land Disposal, DDA), certain papers/documents relating to assets acquired/expenses incurred by him and his family members besides the cash amount of ₹ 36 lacs were recovered and seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Consequently, a fresh FIR No.RC.AC.3/2003 A0003 was registered against A.M. Sharan, the son of the respondent. 4. During the investigation of the subsequent case emanating from FIR No. RC.AC.3/2003 A0003, A.M. Sharan claimed that the cash of about ₹ 36 lacs recovered from his residence belonged to his father, the respondent herein. On enquiry from the father, the respondent K.M. Sharan took the plea in writing that the amount recovered from the residence of his son belonged to him which he had received as sale proceeds of two properties, i.e., Plot No. 908 and House No. C-2/388, Janak Puri, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, in order to demonstrate that in this case the ingredients of section 120B read with section 193 IPC are fully made out, has drawn our attention to the charge-sheet in extenso. We deem it appropriate to reproduce certain portions of the charge-sheet to evaluate whether the ingredients of offence under section 120B read with section 193 IPC are made out or not. It would not be appropriate to comment on the material collected by the CBI because the evidence has yet not been adduced, but from the prime facie material on record, we would try to adjudge and evaluate whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet in this case. The relevant para nos. 3, 8 and 17 to 21 of the charge-sheet read as under: 3. It was alleged in the FIR that accused Anand Mohan Sharan, while working in different capacities in Govt. of Haryana and as Commissioner (Land Disposal), Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (while on deputation to Govt. of India from 17.7.2001 to 28.3.2003) between the period from 1990 to 27.3.2003 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position as public servant acquired assets in his own name or in the name of his family membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 6.3.2003 from Shri Vijay Gulati at Bahadurgarh Plot and an amount of ₹ 22 lakhs was received on 20.3.2003 from Shri Harmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh as advance for sale of Janakpuri House against a total consideration of ₹ 50 lakhs. He has also claimed that since he had to proceed to Jaisalmer on 8.3.2003, he kept the amount of ₹ 14 lakhs received for Bahadurgarh plot with his son Shri Anand Mohan Sharan. Further, he also contended that he had fractured his leg at Jaisalmer and had returned to Delhi on 12.3.2003. Under these circumstances he had to stay at his son's house for a couple of days and on 20.3.2003, the deal for sale of Janakpuri house also materialized and consequent thereto, he claimed to have kept the said amount of ₹ 22 lakhs also at his son's residence. He further claimed that it was in view of his medical condition that he considered it prudent to keep cash received towards the above mentioned sale transactions at his son's house. 19. During the investigation, the plea taken by Shri K.M. Sharan was found to be dubious and incorrect, as a number of inconsistencies were found in the explanation which rebut the explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll with Shri Harmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh, without the consent of the Bank. Investigation has also disclosed that Shri Ved Prakash Aneja, Chartered Engineer, C-2/19, Janakpuri who was deputed by the Bank to conduct Valuation of the said property, C-2/388, Janakpuri, New Delhi at the time of issuing Bank guarantee, had valued the same at ₹ 1 crore 29 lakhs as per valuation report dated 21.7.2001. It completely defies logic and commonsense that this property valued at ₹ 1 crore 29 lacs was being sold for a total consideration of ₹ 50 lacs to Shri Harmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh. (iv) That, Shri Anoop Singh who purportedly financed ₹ 12 lakhs out of ₹ 22 lakhs for purchase of Janakpuri property, while disclosing the source of this amount he claimed that he and his family members received money amounting to ₹ 10,60,000/- in 28 separate installments from August 2002 to March 2003 from his relatives settled in USA through Western Union Money Transfer. It defies commonsense and reasonable prudence that this money never entered banking channels from August 2002 to March 2003 and was kept in the house by Shri Anoop Singh, and was finall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had kept ₹ 4 lakhs in his house which was received by him on 4.2.2003 towards advance for sale of plot at Bahadurgarh till 8.3.2003 instead of depositing the same at Bank of Baroda located near his house, where he had an account. He has claimed that this amount was kept at Anand Mohan Sharan's residence on 8.3.2003 i.e. more than one month later. He also claimed that part payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- received on 6.3.2003 in the same deal was also kept by him at Anand Mohan Sharan's residence on 8.3.2003 instead of depositing the same in the aforesaid Bank located near his house. These claims of Shri K. M. Sharan are devoid of any logic, and defy normal human prudence/practice. (viii) That, during investigation, Shri Vijay Gulati and Shri Ajay Gulati who allegedly purchased the Bahadurgarh plot have stated before independent witnesses, that the currency notes of ₹ 14 lacs paid by them to Shri K.M. Sharan for the deal of Bahadurgarh plot were in the denomination of ₹ 100 and ₹ 50/-. However, in the currency notes of 36 lacs, which was seized from the residence of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan, as aforementioned, the currency notes found in the denom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e false. It is also disclosed that Shri Anand Mohan Sharan had entered into a criminal conspiracy with his father Shri K.M. Sharan, in furtherance to which false evidence was created and submitted during the course of investigation in the instant case. 21. The investigation has therefore established that the said Shri Anand Mohan Sharan during the period 22.08.1991 to 27.03.2003 was in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income by ₹ 45,70,560.38 (Rupees Forth five lacs, seventy thousand, five hundred sixty and thirty eight paisa) which he could not satisfactorily account for. Further, Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Anand Mohan Sharan by intentionally fabricating false evidence to legitimize the source of the aforementioned cash of ₹ 36,00,000/- seized during the house search of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan. The aforesaid acts constitute commission of offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 by Shri Anand Mohan Sharan and U/s 120B r/w 193 I.P.C. by Shri Anand Mohan Sharan and Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan and substantive offence thereof. 8. In the light of abovementioned material, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard fortifies the fact that the transactions with regard to the sale of two immovable properties of the petitioner actually did take place one with Vijay Gulati and another with Harmanjeet Singh and Anoop Singh and they had stated before the investigators that part of the amount had actually passed to the petitioner towards the part sale price of the two properties, yet the investigators suspected and merely on suspicion brought him in the dock. It shall be noteworthy to add here that the prospective vendees having come to know that the properties which were to be purchased by them had become a subject matter of criminal case, they filed civil suits in the High Court for cancellation of their agreements and for refund of their amount. This is one of the strong circumstances which favours the petitioner. The investigators felt that even this was done at the behest of the petitioner. If investigators were so sure about this then what prevented them from bringing these two parties in the criminal net as well. The prosecution appears to have hooked the petitioner merely on suspicion. The prosecution took note of the following circumstances, such as currency notes found from the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an chit to the respondent. The High Court observed as under: What else weigh in my mind is that his son accused Anand Mohan Sharan was given only one day to produce such documents. This Court wonders if documents referred to above could be prepared overnight. However, these documents also included the cheques paid by the vendee towards the transaction of the property. While being interrogated he had there and then stated that the amount so recovered from his house actually belonged to his father which he had kept, he being alone and an old man and for safety purpose he had kept that amount with him. He was asked to bring proof in that regard next day which he brought before the investigator in the form of an agreement to sell executed between his father and the vendees and also the sale deed including the receipt and cheques which were of prior date of the date of alleged commission of present offence. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has no case against the petitioner he being not involved either in the commission of main offence or for creating the offence of fabricating the document. (emphasis supplied) 14. In the concluding paragraph, the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys [1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be zealously preserved. 20. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more. 24. The classic exposition of the law is found in State of West Bengal Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 561. In this case, Chandrachud, CJ in his concurring separate judgment has stated that if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received . Justice A.N. Sen who wrote the main judgment in that case with which Chandrachud, CJ and Varadarajan, J. agreed has laid the legal proposition as follows: ...the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 26. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 655, this Court observed that the jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. 27. Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the case of State of Har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 32. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736, this court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The court noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The court further observed that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 33. This Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 188 has reiterated the legal position. The Court observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that the decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 34. Now, the cru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 39. On careful scrutiny and analysis of the allegations incorporated in the FIR and the charge-sheet set out in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, it is abundantly clear that ingredients of sections 193 and 120B IPC are clearly made out in the instant case setting out a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and investigation thereon. 40. In our considered view, this case does not fall under any of the categories of cases formulated in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent calling for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent powers of the court to quash the FIR. 41. It would not be appropriate to comment or express any opinion on the truthfulness or veracity of the allegations incorporated in the FIR or the charge-sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
