9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. M/s EMAAR MGF-A4 will hold 75% interest and M/s EHTPL-A3 will hold 25%. Hence accordingly, the stake of M/s APIIC in this project has changed to 6.5% of revenue as opposed to 26% in profits. By way of reduction of share of M/s APIIC to 6.5%, their partner M/s EMAAR MGF alone was allegedly benefited about Rs. 2,500 crores. M/s Emaar MGF sold the plots for the villas at Rs. 5,000/- per yard from 2006 onwards. It is alleged that M/s Emaar MGF collected another Rs. 25,000/- per yard from the buyers at the time of selling these plots. Total land for 134 villas sold so far 1,71,559 sq. yards (36 acres approx). So far they have collected official sale proceeds of Rs. 85.77 crores and unaccounted amount of 450 crores, which is alleged to have been siphoned off. However, not a single rupee has been credited to M/s APIIC so far, but only shown as equity as shares, for the amount due to M/s APIIC. The petitioner-A13-(being son of Mr. Koneru Rajendra Prasad- Accused No.6) is carrying out his business at Dubai. 3. It is alleged that an amount of US $ 250,000 (equivalent to Rs. 1.05 crores approximately) was deposited through RTGS into petitioner's bank account in Dubai on 09.08.2007 by one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence under section 420 IPC, there must a dishonest inducement to part with property, which once again is admittedly not even an allegation against the petitioner. (e) The essential ingredient of section 120B IPC, being meeting of minds, has not even been alleged against the petitioner with anybody. Moreover, the meeting of minds must be with respect to and towards an act or omission which comprises an offence. No such allegation has been made against the petitioner. There is no allegation of any act either direct or circumstantial in order to allege conspiracy or abetment as against the petitioner. (f) From the statement dated 23rd November, 2011 of LW-109 it is evident that the petitioner is totally ignorant regarding the sale of the Villa plots. In the said statement, LW-109 categorically stated that upon asking the petitioner for allotment of a plot, the petitioner had informed him that as he was based out of Dubai, he was not involved in sale of villa plots. (g) It is the settled law that at the stage of consideration of charge, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion about the involvement of an accused on the basis of such material which could lead to an inference of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of the thing. Any one of these things is essential to complete abetment as a crime and neither of these has even been alleged against the petitioner. (m) Neither the prosecution nor any of the relevant prosecution witnesses in their individual statements recorded u/s 164 or 161 CrPC have alleged any direct role/involvement of Mr. Madhu Koneru nor have they even imputed knowledge to him let alone intention. (n) Assuming, but not admitting, the statements in the charge sheet and the statements under section 161 CrPC to be true, the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner have not been made out and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. 6. In view of the above submissions and grounds, it is clearly established that the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as Accused No. 13 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent. The petitioner has filed a discharge petition before the Court below. However, it has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed through unnecessary humiliation and rigmaroles of criminal trial. (3). It is pertinent to mention that, indeed, the statement of Shri Nandhyala Sri Vishnu Raju (@Page 295) expressly reveals that Mr. Madhu Koneru was not in anyway involved in the sale of Villa plots. (4). On bare reading of the Sec. 161 CrPC statements of Suresh Challa and PS Parthasarthy, it is evident that they were asked to transfer monies to a Dubai Account belonging to Mr. Madhu Koneru. This instruction was allegedly given to them by Mr. Koneru Prasad and/or Mr. T. Ranga Rao. (5). It is not the case of prosecution that there were any discussions or meetings between Koneru Prasad and PS Parthasarthy, on the one hand, and Madhu Koneru on the other hand, in relation to the sale of the villas and in particular to the transfer of monies to his account. (6). He has not given any instruction to any person to deposit money into his account and there is no evidence that even remotely suggests that Madhu Koneru was told the purpose or reason for receipt of these monies by his father or Ranga Rao. (7). The petitioner has been an NRI for over 30 years now. He was residing and carrying on his business in Dubai durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by cogent and acceptable evidence. (12). It is also submitted that a few bits here and there on which the prosecution proposes to rely are woefully inadequate for connection the accused with the crime, howsoever skillfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole. Further, it is an established principle of law that mere circumstantial suspicion to prove the involvement of the accused is not sufficient to meet the requirements of criminal conspiracy. (13). It is submitted that the Petitioner is clearly not part of either general conspiracy or special/smaller conspiracy in the present case. A meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be proved by placing substantive evidence. Merely leveling a charge of conspiracy on possible suspicion without mentioning how, where, when and which of the conspirators hatched the conspiracy is not sufficient to mulct criminal liability on the accused. The purposes or circumstances warranting an inference of existence of a conspiracy should be stated so as to bring the accused to face the trial in criminal court, in the present case there is no material to suggest the same. (14). The case of the prosecution and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Merely because they happened to deposit certain amount of money in the bank account of the petitioner at the alleged instructions of third parties, no offence can even be alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. In the statement of T. Ranga Rao U/s 161 he made it clear that he instructed Challa Suresh and Parthasarthy to deposit certain amount in the account of the petitioner. Therefore, there is not even an allegation of commission of any act by the petitioner which could be classified as an offence. There is not even an allegation in the charge sheet that it was under petitioner's instruction that the money was deposited in his account. 10. The counter filed by the respondent (CBI) vis-à-vis the oral submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI are that: (1). The case vide RC: 18(A)/2011-CBI/HYD was registered against Shri B.P.Acharya, (A-1); M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai (A-2); M/s Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd.(M/s EHTPL) (A-3); M/s Emaar MGF land Ltd (A-4) represented by their Directors and others, on 17.08.2011 U/s 120-B r/w 420, 409, 420 & 477-A IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness and convention facilities); a Hotel (of business class with 300 or ore rooms); Golf Course (A Pro-championship 18 hole Golf Course along with Golf Club, Club House and Country Club) and Multi-use development (including Villas and Commercial complex area), in Public Private Partnership (PPP) in an extent of 550 acres of land to be given on outright sale/lease basis. After inviting Expression of Interest (EoI) through M/s APIIC, the GoAP selected M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai (A-2) for executing the said integrated project at Hyderabad. The Department of Industries and Commerce, GoAP issued G.O.Ms.No.359, dt.04.09.2002, finalizing the implementation structure of the integrated project. The Golf Course was to be developed in an extent of 235 acres of leased land, while multi-use development was to be developed in an extent of 285 acres of land to be provided to the developer on free hold basis. The Convention Centre and Business Hotel were to be developed in 15 acres leased land. The Integrated Project was to be implemented by M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai(A-2) through two separate Joint Venture Companies (Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)-i.e.SPV-1 & SPV-2). The Golf Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Koneru (A-13) is an afterthought and refunding the amount does not absolve him from the criminal liability. (v) Shri Madhu Koneru (A-13) also received an amount of US $ 140,000/-(equivalent to Rs. 65 lakhs approx) in account No.2750064022 of him maintained with National Bank of Dubai on 12-04-2005 from Shri Challa Suresh. In this case Shri Madhu Koneru (A-13) has explained that Shri Challa Suresh paid the said money for investing in real estate. The fact remains that the said amount was paid towards part sale consideration in cash for villa plot No.A-28 allotted to Shri Challa Suresh and this fact has been confirmed by Shri Suresh and Shri Ranga Rao. The amount is still with Shri Madhu Koneru. (vi) The aforesaid acts of Shri Madhu Koneru(A-13) establishes commission of the offences punishable U/s.120-B r/w.420,109 & 409 IPC. (5). It is submitted that the case against the petitioner-Madhu Koneru(A-13) is of large magnitude and the petitioner has impoverished the public exchequer/properties to the tune of several thousands of crores and has enriched himself through illegal means. (6). That the above facts have clearly brought out strong prima facie evidence, documentary and oral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce trial by the petitioner as A13 and hence sought for dismissal of the quash petition. 12. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 13. From the above, with no need of repetition of the facts, the main allegations from the prosecution case in so far as against the petitioner as A13 are that, though the rate of selling the villa plots was fixed by M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai with M/s Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., at Rs. 5,000/- per Sq. Yd., as per the instructions of Shri Koneru Rajendra Prasad-A6, Shri T.Ranga Rao-A14 as Director of M/s Stylish Holmes, sold the villa plots by collecting excess amounts from the buyers ranging from Rs. 4,000/- per Sq. Yd. to Rs. 45,000/- per Sq. Yd., over & above the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per Sq. Yd. and it is the criminal breach of trust and cheating and to commit the offences there was a criminal conspiracy and as part of their nefarious plan, the excess money over & above the documented price of Rs. 5,000/- per Sq. Yd was collected of an amount of Rs. 96,01,75,000/- by Shri T.Ranga Rao and Shri Rajendra Prasad from about 82 or so villa plot buyers in cash only; however two of such buyers viz., Shri P.S.Parthasarathy and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u S/o Shri Koneru Rajendra Prasad maintained at Dubai. Thus it is only to consider whether petitioner-A13 is privy to any criminal conspiracy with any other accused. 15. From the above now to consider whether the petitioner- A13 is in any way can be held privy to any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC with any other accused and liable to face trial for the accusation of criminal conspiracy, leave about with any other offence therefrom, from the material on record, even taken on its face value, from his allowing of any such amounts remitted in to his account without immediate refund? 15(a). The mere establishing of relationship of son and father between the petitioner-A13 and A6-Rajendraprasad is not at all enough to say that petitioner is also privy to the alleged conspiracy between M/s Emaar and M/s Stylish Holmes rep. by Ranga Rao and at the instance of Rajendraprasad even as per the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd [2010 (10) SCC 479] in categorically holding that merely on the basis of the appellant's status in the company, it could not be presumed that it is the appellant who became a party to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivy between A6&A13, leave about with others, in the absence of any factual foundation to establish agreement and privy between persons to call as members of conspiracy, even by picking up any bits from here and there, for basically an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable material stands to scrutiny from its analysation on existence of prima-facie accusation or not. 15(d). In this regard in State of Karnataka Vs. V.L. Munniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], the Apex Court held way back that a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with the crime, howsoever skillfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole. 15(e). In PKM Selvam and Others Vs. State [MANU/TN/2746/2015], the Madras High Court by relying upon the expression of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao [2012 (9) SCC 512] held that an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite the Secretary concerned of the State Govt. raised strong objection for the proposal and even Secretary, Ministry of Coal raised objection also on the poor quality by its ignorance and even by deviation of conditions of Central Government for rooting through it and the discharge by trial court held unsustainable, that too when all concerned officials were charged. 15(i). Even to place reliance on the above proposition, it is not even with any remote correlation to those facts herein, for nothing even to show there were any earlier contacts over phone even between the two buyers with the petitioner-A13, much less with Ranga Rao or with Rajendraprasad at the relevant period to infer from any circumstances, much less by any overt acts and in the absence of which even on knowing about the amounts remitted to his account and thereafter even kept quiet from any say by his father those are only subsequent acts and not acts primly related to and prior to the remittances and as such only from his retention of amounts or later return with say of loan or investment cannot prove any criminal conspiracy in sale of plots for higher price and appropriation of amounts over the fixed sums. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. However, a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 15(n). In Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal Vs. State of T.N. [(2005) 2 SCC 13] the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held at Para 12 as follows: 12. ........ Therefore, there should first be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements can be used against his co-conspirators. ...... The correct import of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cogent and convincing evidence against each of the accused. It is one who commits an over act with knowledge of conspiracy is guilty and one who tacitly consents to the object of the conspiracy can also be made liable. The Court in appreciation must take care to see that the acts and conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict. The offender will be liable only if he comes within the plain terms of the penal statute. Criminal liability cannot be fastened by way of analogy or by extension of a common law principle. When men enter into an agreement for an unlawful end, they become ad-hoc agents for one another, and have made a partnership in crime. Beyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary mensrea for proving that a person is guilty of conspiring to commit an offence be established. 15(p). The Constitution Bench expression of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal V. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682] way back observed that the offence of conspiracy has to be established like any ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication-[See Mohammad Usman supra]. 15(s). The following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn. Vol 1) cited by Jagannatha Shetty, J in Kehar Singh supra brings out the legal position succinctly: "The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or affecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough" 15(t). Further it was noted in Kehar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iracy so long as they are co-participators in the main object of conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy." 15(v). In Ajay Agarwal vs Union Of India [AIR 1993 SC 1637], it was held that though an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means is criminal conspiracy, if the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. 15(w). Even coming to the distinction between Section 120B and Section 107((2) IPC, in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], the Apex Court Constitution Bench held that: Under Section 107(2), a person abets the doing of a thing, who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and an order to the doing of that thing. Therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to an abetment. Something more is necessary; namely, an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing for which the conspiracy was made. 15(z). As held in Pramathanath supra, once the gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is in the agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means and where, however, the agreement is to do an illegal act which is not an offence or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, some act besides the agreement is necessary. Further, mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough. Thus, Ex facie, there is no material to show that a conspiracy had been hatched by the Petitioner-A13. 16. In State of M.P vs Sheetla Sahai & Ors. [(2009) 8 SCC 617], it was held from paras 44 to 59 while dismissing the appeal of the prosecution agency holding nothing to incriminate the official respondents 1-7 as held by the High Court under Section 120B IPC and Section 13 PC Act as follows: "44. The intra-departmental and inter-departmental correspondences and note sheets to which we have adverted to hereto before clearly go to show that the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 49. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to mean: "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.-- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object." Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. 50. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, for the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the aforementioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was required to establish the offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution." We may also notice that in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI [(2003) 3 SCC 641], it was held: "...Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment..." In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 6 SCALE 469], this Court opined: "23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so interesting to notice that the prosecution had proceeded against the officials in a pick and choose manner. We may notice the following statements made in the counterDr. affidavit which had not been denied or disputed to show that not only those accused who were in office for a very short time but also those who had retired long back before the file was moved for the purpose of obtaining clearance for payment of additional amount from the government, viz., M.N. Nadkarni who worked as Chief Engineer till 24.03.1987 and S.W. Mohogaonkar, Superintending Engineer who worked till 19.06.1989 have been made accused but, on the other hand, those who were one way or the other connected with the decision, viz., Shri J.R. Malhotra and Mr. R.D. Nanhoria have not been proceeded at all. We fail to understand on what basis such a discrimination was made. 57. In Soma Chakravarty (supra), whereupon strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Tulsi, this Court opined: "23. In a case of this nature, the learned Special Judge also should have considered the question having regard to the "doctrine of parity" in mind. An accused similarly situated has not been proceeded against only because, the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself has placed on record. If upon perusal of the entire materials on record, the court arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be framed, but if only one and one view is possible to be taken, the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial. {See State of Maharashtra and Others v. Som Nath Thapa and Others [(1996) 4 SCC 659]}." Therefore, the distinction between the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the offence of criminal conspiracy, so far as the agreement to commit an offence is concerned, lies in this. For abetment by conspiracy mere agreement is not enough. An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for. But in the offence of criminal conspiracy the very agreement or plot is an act in itself and is the gist of the offence. - Willes, J. observed in Mulcahy v. The Queen (1). 17. From the above, when it is not a case of the Petitioner-A13 was privy to any conspiracy with M/s. Emaar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. For that the acts and conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict. If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. what is essential of the Agreement as a primary fact is proved from the prosecution material on record, for mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. 19. The respondent-CBI even alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner-A13 is also a party to the so called criminal conspiracy, but on the evaluation of the entire subject matter, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply the test and if shows the basic ingredients of the offence not satisfied the Court may interfere. It is also observed that the process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used as an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. The Court where finds it would amount to abuse of process or interest of Justice favors otherwise it may quash the proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae that is to do real and substantial justice (as held in Munniswamy supra) for administration of which alone the Courts exercise. 23. The Apex Court in Amit Kapoor (supra) referring to State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39], held that the presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. It the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the use of inherent jurisdiction and the avoidance of interference in details and directed providing of a legal practitioner. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favors, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Indian Oil Corporation, Zandu Pharma, Ganesh Narayan, Bhajanlal, Madhavarao Jivajirao, L. Muniswamy, R.P. Kapoor etc., it was observed that exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for in a case of which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive and the like for exhaustive list of grounds cannot be laid down but for to decide each case on own facts. 34. In Inder Mohan Goswami V. State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1] (3JB) it was observed that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are though wide that has to be exercised sparingly with great caution and to exercise ex-debito justitiae that is to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which the Courts exist, and for not to allow to use the prosecution is an instrument of harassment or private vendetta or with a motive to pressurize the accused to terms and the powers too could not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and Court should refrain from giving prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers of the High Court but for to say the order brings about a situation which is an abuse of process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice or interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary for exercise of the inherent power sparingly to say in such a situation. 38. It also observed in Madhu Limaye (supra) that the High Court alone can pass such orders ex debito justitiae- to do real and substantial justice in the lis. It was also observed referring to Section 151 C.P.C. and the earlier expressions of the Apex Court in Padamsen Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 218] & Manoharlal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur [AIR 1962 SC 527] that it is well recognized that the High Court is vested with inherent power, however, said inherent power is not to be exercised contrary to any express provision that being the intention of legislature in enacting the civil & criminal procedure codes vis-à-vis the law laid down by the Apex Court. 39. It was also held by the Apex Court in Popular Muthaiah Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police [2006(3) SCC-245 at paras-30&31 page-260] that the inherent power is not confined to procedural or adjectival law but even ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrespective of nature of proceedings; as it acts ex debito justitiae- to mean to do real and substantial justice in the lis for which alone the power exists inherently. 46. It is needless to say ends of Justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. Without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. 47. In Chandran Ratnaswami V. K.C. Palanisamy [(2013)6 SCC 740] it was held on abuse of process and duty of the Court to quash the proceedings in such case that: "29. The doctrine of abuse of process of court and the remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is well-established and recognized doctrine both by the English courts and courts in India. There are some established principles of law which bar the trial when there appears to be abuse of process of court. Lord Morris in the case of Connelly vs. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL) observed: "There can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the defendant cannot receive a fair trial; (b) cases where the court concludes that it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried." What is unfair and wrong will be for the court to determine on individual facts of each case. 34. The Apex Court three Judge Bench in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others [(1977) 2 SCC 699] observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case (at p.703, para 7 of SCC): "7. .....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 37. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (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: (SCC p. 749, para 13) "13. ... 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." 38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Others, AIR 1970 SC 786 (at p.789), this Court has stated thus: "7. ..... It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer malafide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. The fact that the Code does not contain any other provision giving power to a Magistrate to stop investigation by the police cannot be a ground for holding that such a power must be read in Section 159 of the Code." In the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, AIR 1982 SC 949 while examining the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence, Chandrachud, C.J. has affirmed the view expressed by Mathew, J. and observed as follows: (at p.958 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In CBI v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava [(2006) 7 SCC 188], the Apex Court held that the High Court under Section 482 of the Code exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings if it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any such action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, have inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ips ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the Judge will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. Even where the material placed discloses a grave suspicion, which has not been properly explained the Court will be justified in framing a charge. Thus, even where there is grave suspicion if explained the same by accused the court cannot frame charge, but for discharge leave about a mere suspicion cannot be a ground to frame charge, but for discharge. 53. In L. Krishna Reddy Vs. State [(2014) 14 SCC 401], the Apex Court held that where evidence justifying prosecution is not available, the accused has to be discharged otherwise the prosecution would be an exercise of futility. 54. The Apex Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC 667] while interpreting the doctrine of Public Trust, explained the aspects of 'entrustment' 'domain' of property 'Trust' 'Trustee' etc., which are the essential ingredients in the alleged offences punishable u/sections 409 & 420 of IPC and Section 13 of the PC Act. 55. The Apex Court in Rishipal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (7) SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
