LexGHANSHYAM SHARMA versus SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 9 S.C.R. 447 GHANSHYAMSHARMA v. SURENPRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1838 of 2014) AUGUSI 26, 2014 [J. CHELAMESHWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Appellant withdrew money from bank, went to the house of respondents accompanied by first respondent while leaving the money in C the car of first respondent - Glass of the car subsequently broken and the money stolen - Chargesheet against respondents u/s. 406 and 420 /PC - Trial Court summoned the respondents - They approached High Court u/s. 482 CrPC - Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court - Legality of - o Held: High Court grossly erred in quashing the proceedings against the respondents - Argument before the High Court was that offences ulss. 406 and 420 /PC were not made out on the facts alleged in the FIR - High Court opined that there was no entrustment of the money and at best it was a case of E theft falling uls.379 /PC - Thus, even according to High Court, the case fell uls.379 /PC~ Whether respondents are guilty u/ s.379 /PC or not is a matter of evidence - The fact that the police chose to file chargesheet u/ss.406 and 420 /PC is not conclusive regarding the offences for which the respondents- accused are to be tried - . The trial Court can always frame appropriate charge if there is sufficient material from the report of the police available before it - In case material is insufficient F to frame a charge, the trial Court may either discharge the accused or may direct further investigation in the matter - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 379, 406 and 420. G It was alleged that there was an agreement between the appellant and the contesting respondents (1 to 3) 447 H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A whereunder the said respondents agreed to sell a plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yards to the appellant for an amount of Rs.44,00,000/-. It was alleged that as per the agreement, the appellant did, in fact, make some payment. On 11.7.2009, the appellant complained to the police 8 that the father of the contesting respondents had called the appellant on telephone and asked the appellant to make the payment of the balance amount to the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent approached the appellant. Both of them went to the bank C in a car belonging to the first respondent wherein the appellant withdrew an amount of Rs.16,68,000/- and then proceeded to the house of the father of the respondents. When they were about to enter the house, the first respondent insisted that the appellant leave the money D in the car itself. The appellant left the money in the car and went into the house of the respondents. While the appellant and the father of the respondents were discussing, the first respondent went out of the house and returned after a while to infQrm the appellant that the E glass of the vehicle, in which money was kept, was broken and the money was stolen. In the abovementioned background, the appellant lodged a complaint with the police praying that action be taken against the respondents. The police investigated the case F and filed a chargesheet under Section 406 and 420 IPC. The trial Court summoned the accused-respondents. The respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the criminal proceedings be quashed. The said application was allowed by the High G Court and hence the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The basic facts that the appellant withdrew money from the bank, went to the house of the H respondents accompanied by the first respondent and .GHANSHYAM SHARMA v. SURENDRA KUMAR 449 SHARMA left the money in thE!'car of the first respondent do not A appear to be in dispute. On the other hand, from the impugned judgment it appears that the argument before the High Court was that the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC are not made out on the facts alleged in the FIR. The High Court opined that there was no entrustment B of the money in the instant case and at best it was a case of theft falling under Section 379 IPC. This Court does not propose to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the High Court in an enquiry that there was no entrustment of money. The fact remains that the c appellant lost money which was kept in the car of the first respondent. Even according to the High Court, the case would fall under Section 37
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.