CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus A. RAVISHANKAR PRASAD & ORS

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 1025 
J 
\ 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
A 
v. 
A. RAVISHANKAR PRASAD & ORS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1082-1085 of 2009) 
MAY 15, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
·"'"' 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Inherent 
powers of High Court under - Nature and scope of - Bank 
fraud - Allegation of clandestine dealings and systematic c 
fraud by respondents in collusion with bank officials to receive 
pecuniary advantage - Cases against respondents under 
s. 120-B rlw s.420 /PC - Application by respondents uls.482 
CrPC - Allowed by High Court - Propriety of - Held: Not 
). 
proper- Inherent power u/s. 482 CrPC should not be exercised D 
• 
to stifle a legitimate prosecution - On facts, prima facie . 
adequate material was available on record to proceed against 
the respondents - Trial of case was at advanced stage and 
quashing proceedings at such stage was an abuse of the' 
process of Court - Also, since respondents and the bank 
E 
officials shared charges under s. 120-B rlw s.420 /PC, 
'y 
quashing charges against the respondents would have very 
.;..: 
serious repercussions on pending cases against the bank 
officials - Mere pgyment of dues by respondents under a 
settlement did not exempt them from criminal proceedings -
F 
Because of unnecessary interference by High Court under 
s. 482 CrPC, trial of case could not be completed and 
concluded - Trial Court directed to conduct trial on day to day 
basis - Penal Code, 1860 ~ s.420 rlw s. 1208 - Prevention 
• 
of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d) . 
G 
According to the appellant, the respondents entered 
into a conspiracy with the Chairman and Managing 
Director and other officials of the Indian Bank with the 
1025 
H 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A object of cheating the Bank in the matter of 
recommending, sanctioning and disbursing huge credit 
facilities running over hundreds of crores and committed 
serious offences such as forgery, fabrication of 
documents and used those documents as genuine. 
B 
On completion of investigation, charge-sheets were 
filed and four cases were registered against the bank 
officials and the respondents and their group concerns 
under section 120-B r/w section 420 IPC. The bank 
C officials were also proceeded against under sectio~ 13(2) 
r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. 
As regards the recovery proceedings initiate~ before 
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the respondents entered into 
D a· compromise with the Bank and settled the entire 
outstanding dues by paying an amount of Rs.157 crores 
and consequently the petitions filed before the Debt 
Recovery Tribunal were dismissed as settled out of 
Court. 
E 
Respondents filed application under section 482 
CrPC whereupon the High Court quashed the entire 
criminal proceedings against them. 
In appeals to this Court, it was contended that the 
F 
sa~ettlement between the parties. did. not absolve the 
respondents from criminal liability and the High Court 
erred in quashing criminal proceedings against them, 
particularly when active trial in the cases was in progress 
and 92 witnesses were already examined and when 
' 
G quashing of criminal. proceedings against the 
f 
respondents would have grave impact and repercussion 
H 
on the criminal proceedings pending against the 
Chairman and the Managing Director and other officials 
of the Bank. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A. 
1027 
RAVISHANKAR PRASAD 
~ 
\, 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court possesses inherent 
powers under section 482 CrPC. These inherent powers 
of the High Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to 
do real and substantial justice, for the administration of 
B 
which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process 
of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can 
··-' 
be exercised in following category of cases: (I) to give 
effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse 
of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the c 
ends of justice. This court time and again has observed 
that the extraordinary power under section 482, Cr.P.C. 
should be exercised sparingly and with great care and 
caution. The court would be justified in exercising the 
power when it is imperative to exercise the power in order 
D 
)_ 
to prevent injustice. [Para 15] (1036-A-D] 
> 
1.2. The powers possessed by High Court under 
Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.