Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 713 - SC - Indian LawsQuashing of a First Information Report (FIR) - commission of offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery - High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC wholly illegally and without jurisdiction - Appellant lodged a FIR against the respondents u/s 409, 420 and 468 r/w Section 34 - First and second respondent approached the High Court for an order for quashing FIR - High Court allowed the proceedings - admittedly the investigation was not even complete - Vicarious liability of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - LKP Shares and Securities Ltd. (the Company) is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 -Respondent No. 1 is its President, the second respondent is its Branch Coordinator. Both of them are stationed at Bombay which is its headquarters. It has many branches including the one at Chennai. Every branch is said to be an independent entity. Respondent No. 3 who has been arrayed as accused No. 3 in the FIR was the Branch Manager of the company at Chennai. Indisputably, all interactions and transactions by and between the appellant and the company, if any, were made by the complainant only with the respondent No. 3. HELD THAT:- The allegations contained in the FIR, do not disclose an offence against the respondent Nos 1 and 2. They have in their individual capacity been charged for commission of offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery. As there had never been any interaction between the appellant and them, the question of any representation which is one of the main ingredients for constituting an offence of cheating, as contained in Section 415 of the IPC, could not arise. Similarly, it has not been alleged that they were entrusted with or otherwise had dominion over the property of the appellant or they have committed any criminal breach of trust. So far as allegations in regard to commission of the offence of forgery are concerned, the same had been made only against the respondent No. 3 and not against the respondent No. 2. Sending a copy thereof to the National Stock Exchange without there being anything further to show that the respondent No. 2 had any knowledge of the fact that the same was a forged and fabricated document cannot constitute offence. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. however, we must clarify one aspect of the matter. Respondent No. 3, arrayed as accused No. 3 in the FIR, did not file any application u/s 482 of the CrPC. We do not know under what circumstances, the High Court directed service of the notice on him. Nowhere in the impugned judgment, High Court found that the allegations contained in the First Information Report against the respondent No. 3 also do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. It is one thing to say that he has not committed the same but it is another thing that the High Court's jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC could have been invoked at this stage. Therefore, we have no other option but to hold that the High Court in its judgment cannot be said to have covered the case of the respondent No. 3. The investigation against him, therefore, shall continue. However, it will be open to him to take appropriate defences at appropriate stages as are permissible in law. The appeal is dismissed.
|