TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted. 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. In DR. MONICA KUMAR ANR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ORS [ 2008 (5) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT] 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 and circumstances of the case. No doubt, in this decision the Court has relied on Article 142 of the Constitution, but in our opinion the result would have been the same irrespective of Article 142. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what was actually executed by them was a Power of Attorney. This Power of Attorney was used by the accused for executing a sale deed in favour of his wife Vijaya Satardekar and Sadiq Sheikh in the year 1991, but the said sale deed was presented for registration only in the year 2001. It is alleged that the complainant came to know only in August 2001 for the first time about the execution of the sale deed in 1991. Thus it is alleged that the property 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 Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997 (8) SC 705], Minu Kumari and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2006(4) SCC 359 [JT 2006(4) SC 569], etc. 12. Shri Rohatgi submitted that on a perusal of the FIR in this case it cannot be said that treating the allegations therein to be correct no prima facie offence is made out against Ranjit Satardekar. We have carefully perused the FIR and we agree with the submission of Shri Rohatgi. The allegations in the FIR if treated to be correct prima facie make out an offence against the respondent, Ranjit Sataredkar. Shri Lalit, learned counsel for Ranjit Satardekar, however, submitted that in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) itself the seventh ground given therein in para 102 of the said decision applies to the facts of this case. The seventh ground which entitles the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is stated in Bhanjan Lal's case (supra) as follows : 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 and personal grudge. 13. Shri Lalit submitted that the proceedings against Ranjit Sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph 16 of the said decision seems 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 formula vide Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa Anr. JT 2008(8) SC 621. As observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani Anr AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's formula nor as provisions of the statute. Thus in our opinion while it is true that ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
