LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus JAGJIT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 361 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION lt. JAGJIT SINGH (Criminal Appeal No.158b of 2013) OCTOBER 1, 2013 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal proceedings u/ss. 4201471 /PC -Allegation of defrauding the C Bank - Compromise between Ban~ and accused - Debt due to the Bank paid pursuant to order of Debts Recovery Tribunal - Criminal proceedings quashed in view of the compromise - Held: - Offences ulss. 4201471 /PC against Bank, fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed D by public servants while working in that capacity - Hence, criminal proceedings not liable to be quashed - Inherent powers to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent a'buse of process of Court- In the instant case neither abuse of process of Court was alleged, nor was a case made E · out that proceedings were required to be quashed in the interest of justice - Penal Code,. 1860 - ss.4201471. FIR was lodged against the respondent-accused alleging that he obtained bank-loan on the basis of forged documents~ with the aid of officers of the Bank. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him u/ss. 420/471 IPC. The respondent-accused settled the dispute with the Bank and repaid the loan amount to the Bank pursuant F to the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. The respondent-accused moved application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. G High Court allowed the same, quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence the present appeal. 361 H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C .. Inherent power 8 is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.:(i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Any compromise between the victim and the offender in C relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to D the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the. victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it E is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. [Para 13] [369-C-E, G, H; 370-A, D-F] 2. In the present case, the specific allegation made against the respondent- accused is that he obtained the F loan on the basis of forged document with the aid of officers of the Bank. On investigation, having found the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property of the Bank (Section 420 IPC) and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 IPC), chargecsheet was submitted under Sections 420/471 IPC G against the accused persons. [Para 14] [370-G-H; 371-AJ 3. The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank pursuant to an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that H there was a compromise between the offender and the CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JAGJIT 363 SINGH victim. The offences when committed in relation with A Banking activities including offences under Sections 420/ 471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that B capacity. Prima facie, one may·state that the bank as the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the Bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on c record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order. in the ends of justice. The High Court has not considered the above factors while passing the impugned order. Hence, the High Court erred in addressing the issue in· right perspective. The trial cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.