LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus MANINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 277 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION A v. MANINDER SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1496of2009) AUGUST 28, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482- Quashing of proceedings - A/legation against the respondent that he availed bank credit facilities with the help of forged C documents in connivance with the bank manager- Charge- sheet - High court quashed the criminal proceedings qua the respondent on the ground that the respondent had settled the matter with the bank - On appeal, held: In economic 0 offences, Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also consider consequence to the society at large - High Court while exercising its inherent power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of the offence, the use of the State machinery to E keep the matter pending for so many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the respondent - To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy - Order of High Court set aside and trial court F directed to proceed with the matter- Penal Code, 1860- ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 rlw s. 120-8- Economic offences. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The allegation against the respondent is G 'forgery' for the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents as genuine in order to embezzle the public money. After facing such serious charges of forgery, the / 277 H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R. A respondent wants the proceedings to be quashed on account of settlement with the bank. The development in means of communication, science & technology etc. have led to an enormous increase in economic crimes viz. phishing, ATM frauds etc. which are being committed B by intelligent but devious individuals involving huge sums of public or government money. These are actually public wrongs or crimes committed against society and the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated at public at large. [Para 10] [284-D-F] c 2. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process D of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence in the instant case is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit E regardless of consequence to the society at large. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved. [Para 11] [284-G-H; 285-A-B] F 3. In this case, the High Court while exercising its inherent power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of the offence, the use of the State machinery to keep the matter pending for so many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the respondent. Considering the G facts and circumstances of the case at hand in the light of the decision in VikramAnantrai Doshi's case, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. [Para 13] [287-C] Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677: H 2008 (12) SCR 236 - distinguished. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANINDER 279 SINGH State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Vikram A Anantrai Doshi and Ors. 2014 (10) SCALE 690: 2014 (7) SCR 743 - relied on. Ru mi Dhar (Smt.) vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2009) 6 sec 364: 2009 (5) SCR 553; Gian s . Singh vs. State of Punjab And Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 (8) SCR 753; Shiji@ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika &Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705: 2011 (13) SCR 135 - referred to. c Case Law Reference 2008 (12) SCR 236 distinguished. Para 3, 9 2009 (5) SCR 553 referred to. Para4 D 2014 (7) SCR 743 relied on. Para4 2012 (8) SCR 753 referred to. Para 5 2011 (13) SCR 135 referred to. Para5 E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 1496 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2009 of the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi in Crl. MC. 2083 of 2006. F Pinky Anand, ASG, Rana Mukherjee, Kumar Parimal, B.V. Bairam Das, Kritika Sachdeva, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. K.K. Menon, Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Guneet Khehar, G Shankar Divate for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.