Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1291 - SC - Indian LawsCriminal conspiracy - Dishonest application for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction - commission of offences Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420/471 Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- The charges framed against the accused-Appellant, it may be repeated, are Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Sections 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that in NIKHIL MERCHANT VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. [2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT] the charges framed against the accused were also Under Sections 120B read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 (Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988) and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In para 28 of the judgment in NIKHIL MERCHANT VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. [2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT] on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in which the charges were brought against the accused this Court had come to the conclusion that The basic intention of the accused in this case appears to have been to misrepresent the financial status of the Company, M/s. Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order to avail of the credit facilities to an extent to which the Company was not entitled. In other words, the main intention of the Company and its officers was to cheat the Bank and induce it to part with additional amounts of credit to which the Company was not otherwise entitled. The Court, thereafter, took into account the fact that the dispute between the parties had been settled/compromised and such compromise formed a part of the decree passed in the suit filed by the bank. After holding that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding was not contingent on the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and taking into account the conclusion recorded in para 28 of the judgment, as noticed above, the Court ultimately concluded that in the facts of the case it would be justified to quash the criminal proceeding. At the very outset a detailed narration of the charges against the accused-Appellant has been made. The Appellant has been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the offence Under Section 13(1)(d). He is also substantively charged Under Section 420 (compoundable with the leave of the Court) and Section 471 (non-compoundable). A careful consideration of the facts of the case would indicate that unlike in Nikhil Merchant (supra) no conclusion can be reached that the substratum of the charges against the accused-Appellant in the present case is one of cheating - The offences are certainly more serious; they are not private in nature. The charge of conspiracy is to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused has also been charged for commission of the substantive offence Under Section 471 Indian Penal Code. If the High Court has taken the view that the exclusion spelt out in GIAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER [2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT] applies to the present case and on that basis had come to the conclusion that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised to quash the criminal case against the accused, we cannot find any justification to interfere with the said decision. The appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.
|