2012 (11) TMI 1241 - SC - Indian Laws

Withdrawal/encashed amount using forged Signature - Application for Quashing of Charges against Bank manager and other - the Appellant lodged a complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police New Delhi that he along with his wife had opened five FCNR-FD in their joint names. According to the complainant accused who is his father-in-law had forged his signatures on the F.D receipts and got the same renewed in the sole name of his wife who thereafter encashed the value thereof and unauthorisedly received the payments due. Role of Bank manager - No material has been brought on record to even prima facie show the involvement of either of the accused - Appellants with any of the offences alleged. Mere holding of the office of Chief Manager and Senior Manager of the concerned Bank by itself will not make the accused - Appellants liable unless the positive role of either of the Appellants in the renewal of the FDs in the sole name of accused Anita Mehra or in the encashment of one of the FDs by the aforesaid accused is disclosed. the provisions of the Regulations/Guidelines relating to Fixed Deposit as in force in the Bank to contend that the action of accused - Appellants has been in conformity with the mandate of the Banking Norms even if it is to be assumed that they had any role to play in the matter of renewal of the FDs in the sole name of the accused Anita Mehra and the subsequent encashment . HELD THAT - Court do not see as to why the action of the accused father in law in making the endorsement in the Investment Renewal of Vyasa Bank in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances already noted cannot prima facie amount to making of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that the same was made by or by the authority of the joint account holder. The said document having contained an endorsement that the FD be altered/renewed in the single name of accused wife and the Bank having so acted prima facie the commission of offences u/s 467 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC in our considered view is disclosed against the accused father in law. The order of the High Court quashing the charges framed against father in law u/s 467 468 and 471 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC in so far as the Investment Renewal and FD with Vyasa Bank therefore is clearly unsustainable. We therefore interfere with the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court in so far as the accused father in law is concerned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charges against the accused G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora.
2. Quashing of charges against the accused S.K. Khosla.
3. Quashing of charges against the accused Anita Mehra.
4. Examination of the High Court's interference with the charges framed by the trial court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Charges Against G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora:
The Supreme Court examined the involvement of G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora, who were Chief Manager and Senior Manager of Canara Bank, respectively. The Court noted that no material evidence was brought forward to show their involvement in the renewal and encashment of the fixed deposits (FDs) in the sole name of Anita Mehra. The Court emphasized that mere holding of office does not imply liability unless a positive role in the fraudulent activities is proven. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish any direct involvement or authorization by these accused in the alleged wrongful acts, thus quashing the charges against them.

2. Quashing of Charges Against S.K. Khosla:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision to quash charges under Sections 120B and 420 IPC against S.K. Khosla concerning FD Nos. 22/91 and 9/92. The Court found that the renewals were based on letters from Anita Mehra, not endorsements by S.K. Khosla, thus justifying the High Court's quashing of these charges. However, for FD No. 0756223 with Vyasa Bank, the Court noted that the renewal was based on an Investment Renewal Form signed by both Satish Mehra and Anita Mehra, with an endorsement by S.K. Khosla. Given the suspicious circumstances surrounding this form, the Court held that prima facie evidence of forgery and fraud existed, thus reinstating the charges under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC against S.K. Khosla.

3. Quashing of Charges Against Anita Mehra:
The High Court had quashed charges under Sections 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120B IPC against Anita Mehra. The Supreme Court did not explicitly address this issue in detail in the judgment, focusing instead on the charges against the other accused and the procedural aspects of quashing charges.

4. Examination of the High Court's Interference:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that such power should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose a triable offence. The Court referred to precedents like R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, highlighting that the framing of charges affects an individual's liberty and must be based on substantial evidence. The Court found that the High Court's quashing of charges against G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora was justified due to the lack of evidence. However, it disagreed with the High Court's decision to quash certain charges against S.K. Khosla, reinstating them based on the evidence available.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora, quashing the charges against them due to lack of evidence. It partially allowed the appeal concerning S.K. Khosla, reinstating charges under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC related to FD No. 0756223 with Vyasa Bank. The judgment emphasized the need for substantial evidence to sustain criminal charges and the careful exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings.