LexASOKE BASAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [201 O] 12 S.C.R. 736 ASOKE BASAK V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2010) OCTOBER 8, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 405, 409 r/w s. 34 - Criminal breach of trust - Ingredients of - Discussed - Contract C between respondent No. 2-company and Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) - Respondent no.2 deposited Rs.5 lakhs with MSEB as security deposit - Dispute aro~e between respondent no 2 and MSEB - Respondent No.2 sought immediate refund of Rs.5 lakhs - However, MSEB adjusted o the deposit of 5 lakhs against dues payable by respondent No.2 to MSEB - Respondents No.2 to 4 filed complaint against appellant (Chairman of MSEB) and others under ss. 405 and 409 rlw s. 34 /PC - Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons - Petition filed by appellant uls.482 CrPC E for quashing the complaint dismissed by High Court - Justification of - Held: Not Justified - There was nothing in the complaint to suggest that the complainant had entrusted any property to the appellant or that the appellant had dominion over the said money of the complainant, which was F dishonestly converted by him to his own use, so as to satisfy the ingredients of s. 405 /PC - The complaint did not reveal any pre-concert or pre-planning whereby all the accused had decided to misappropriate the said amount - Since no prima facie case made out against the appellant in respect of offence under s.409 rlw s.405, even with the aid of s.34 /PC, G it was a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its powers u/s.482 CrPC by quashing the complaint against the appellant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 34 - Liability under - Essence of H 736 ASOKE BASAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 737 ORS. - Discussed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Jurisdiction under - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. Respondent No.2-company entered into various contracts with Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for installation of Low Tension Load Management System. Respondent no.2 deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakhs with MSEB as security deposit in lieu of bank guarantee for tenders to be filed by respondent no.2 from time to time in the future. A B c Certain disputes arose between MSEB and respondent No.2, pursuant to which respondent No.2 informed MSEB that they were no longer interested in participating in any tenders which may be floated by o MSEB and sought immediate refund of the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. MSEB, however, informed respondent No.2 that the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs had been adjusted by it against the dues payable by respondent No.2 to MSEB. Thereafter, respondents No.2 to 4 filed a criminal complaint against the appellant (Chairman of MSEB) and other senior officials of the MSEB under Sections 405 and 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was alleged that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was entrusted/bailed to the MSEB by the Complainant and came under the dominion of the accused; that the accused dishonestly and wilfully E F 1 with common criminal intent caused the MSEB to refuse refund of Rs. 5 Lakhs contrary to the provisions of law, and deprived wilfully and dishonestly deprived respondent no.2-company of the use of its money and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust in terms G of Sec. 405 r/w Sec. 409 r/w Sec. 34 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against all the accused named in the complaint. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred petition H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010} 12 S.C.R. A under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the complaint. B The High Court dismissed the said petition. Allowing the appeal and quashing the order of the Magistrate, the Court HELD:1.1. Although the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it is not unbridled. The High Court is required to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and C substantial justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. One of the situations' when the High Court would be justified in invoking its powers is where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, taken at their face value and D accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. [Para 14] [7 48-A-B] 1.2. In the instant case, the gravamen of the com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.