LexCBI, ACB, MUMBAI versus NARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R. 444 CBI, ACB, MUMBAI V. NARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 2014) FEBRUARY 28, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of C proceedings - Allegation against accused-respondents that they conspired with the bank officials and projected inflated figures of the creditworthiness of the companies represented by them to secure more advances/loans from the bank than they were entitled to - Accused-respondents charged u/ss. 120- D 81420, /PC - Suit for recovery by Bank - Consent decree - Civil liability of the accused to pay the amount to the bank settled amicably - No subsisting grievance of the bank in this regard - High Court quashed proceedings u/s. 482 - Held: There is no fault in the order of the High Court exercising power uls. 482 E - s.482 inheres in High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the,process of law or to serve the ends of justice - Continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a ·fame F prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power uls.482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss .. 120-81420. The prosecution case was that the accused- respondents conspired with the bank officials and by projecting inflated figures of the creditworthiness of the G companies represented by them secured more advances/loans from the bank than they were entitled to. FIR was registered against the accused-respondents and several officers of the Bank of Maharashtra. In the chargesheet filed, offences under Sections 120-81420 IPC H 444 CBI, ACB, MUMBAI v. NARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS. ~45 and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were alleged against the accused persons. B While the criminal cases were being investigated, the bank had instituted suits for recovery of the amounts claimed to be due from the respondents. The said suits were disposed of in terms of consent decrees. Thereafter the respondents applied for discharge which was C rejected by the trial court. The trial court thereafter framed charges under Sections 1208/420 IPC and against the bank officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents filed application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which was allowed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the said order of the High Court. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, the offence with which the accused-respondents had been charged were under E Section 120-8/420, IPC. The civil liability of the respondents to pay the amount to the bank was already settled amicably. No subsisti.-,g grievance of the bank in this regard was brought to the notice of the Court. While the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable the offence under Section 120-B is not. [para 10] [451-G] F 2. In the instant case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the bank was mutually settled between ;the parties and the accused having accepted the liability in this regard, G the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no fault in the order of the High Court exercising of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20l4] 3 S.C.R. A inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. Continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under B Section 482 Cr.P.C. [para 11] [452-B-E] c B.S.Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1387; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677: 2008 (12) SCR 236 ·relied on. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 (8) SCR 753 • held inapplicable. Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi D vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 360 • referred to E Case Law Reference: 2012 (8) SCR 753 held inapplic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.