2014 143 AIC 90 ; 2014 4 AICLR 759 ; 2014 0 AIR(SCW) 5567 ; 2015 1 ALT(Cri)(SC) 319 ; 2014 4 BomCR(Cri)(SC) 388 ; 2014 4 CCR(SC) 129 ; 2014 Supp CriLR 20 ; 2014 0 CrLJ 4879 ; 2015 1 JLJR(SC) 341 ; 2015 3 JLJR(SC) 9 ; 2014 10 JT 497 ; 2014 4 KLT(SN) 22 ; 2014 4 LawHerald(SC) 3195 ; 2014 2 NCC 547 ; 2015 2 PLJR(SC) 99 ; 2015 3 PLJR(SC) 314 ; 2014 4 RCR(Cri) 381 ; 2014 10 Scale 690 ; 2014 15 SCC 29 ; 2014 8 SLT 184 ; 2015 3 Supreme 497 ; 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIADIPAK MISRA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.State of Maharashtra Through CBI – AppellantVersusVikram Anantrai Doshi and Others – RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6461 of 2011)Decided on: 19-09-2014
Important Point—Cases of huge financial frauds having deep ramifications cannot be quashed by High Court.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Constitution of India—Article 226—Financial fraud—Compromise between parties—It is not a simple case where accused has borrowed money from bank and diverted it somewhere else and thereafter paid the amount—Availing of money from a nationalized bank in the manner as alleged by investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud—Modus operandi as narrated in charge-sheet cannot be put in compartment of an individual or personal wrong—It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact—Gravity of offence creates dent in economic spine of nation—Cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, has serious consequence—Crime of this nature would definitely fall in category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong—It has potentiality to usher in economic crisis—Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinize entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed criminal proceeding—Quashment neither helps to secure ends of justice nor does it prevent abuse of process of Court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction—Order of High Court is wholly indefensible—Order passed by High Court set aside and trial shall proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 21, 23 and 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Constitution of India—Article 226—Quashing—Court’s principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and crux of settlement—It is experience of Judge comes to his aid and said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence—Collective interest of which Court is guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow proceedings to be withdrawn or yield to ingenuous dexterity of accused persons to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution or under Section 482 of Code and quash proceeding. (Para 23)
(2009) 6 SCC 364; (2009) 6 SCC 351; (2012) 10 SCC 303; 2014(4) SCALE 195; 2014 (3) SCALE 137; 2014 4 SCALE 659—Relied.
(2013) 10 SCC 686—Assented.
(2008) 4 SCC 582; (1996) 5 SCC 591 ; (2008) 9 SCC 677; AIR 2012 SCW 5333 ; 2013(14) SCALE 235—Referred.
Facts of Case—Issue for consideration how far a superior court should proceed to analyse factual score in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction bestowed upon it under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash criminal proceeding solely on the ground that parties have entered into a settlement and, therefore, continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility, or substantial cause of justice warrants such quashment to make the parties free from unnecessary litigation.
Findings of Court—Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinize entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed criminal proceeding. Said quashment neither helps to secure ends of justice nor does it prevent abuse of process of the Court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our view would be difficult to record. Social interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whole case.
Act Referred :
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.20, S.467, S.468, S.406, S.120(b), S.471PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(1)(d), S.13(2)
State of Maharashtra Through CBI VS Vikram Anantrai Doshi
Dipak Misra, J.
The centripodal issue that strikingly emerges, commanding the judicial conscience to ponder and cogitate with reasonable yard-stick of precision, for consideration how far a superior court should proceed to analyse the factual score in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction bestowed upon it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas