HOMI RAJVANSH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 27-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 475 
.HOMI RAJVANSH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2014) 
MARCH 27, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of 
power under - Scope - Allegations of misappropriation of C 
funds by officials of NAFED - Charge-sheet against appellant 
and respondent no. 3 alongwith other accused - Respondent 
no.3 filed writ petition u/s.482 CrPC r/w Art. 2261227 of the 
Constitution - Appellant not shown or impleaded in the 
petition .as a party - High Court allowed the writ petition and o 
quashed criminal proceedings pending against respondent 
no.3 before the Magistrate - Held: High Court erred in 
quashing the complaint against respondent no.3 without 
hearing the appellant who was co-accused in the case as their 
alleged roles were interconnected - High Court further erred 
E 
in coming to a finding against the appellant without the 
appellant being a party in the writ petition filed by respondent 
no.3 - High Court simply agreed with the submissions of 
respondent no.3 against the appellant without giving him 
opportunity of being heard - The High Court over exercised 
F 
its jurisdiction which was in complete violation of the principles 
of natural justice -
Though the High Court possesses 
inherent powers uls. 482 CrPC, these powers are meant to do 
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which 
alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court G 
- Inasmuch as the appellant was not impleadedlshown as one 
of the parties before the High Court, the specific finding 
against his alleged role, based on the submissions of 
respondent no.3 without giving an opportunity of being heard, 
475 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A cannot be sustained - Matter remitted back - Appellant be 
impleaded as respondent no.4 in the writ Petition - High Cowt 
to hear the matter afresh - Penal Code, 1860 - s.1208 rlw 
ss.409, 411,420, 467, 468 and 471. 
8 
The appellant was an Executive Director in National 
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India 
Ltd. (NAFED). Respondent No.3, the Managing Director 
of NAFED, approved the 1st Non-agricultural tie-up of 
NAFED in order to diversify NAFED's business activities 
and participated in all the meetings and approved all 
C transactions for the said purpose. When Respondent 
No.3 was scheduled to go for an international tour, the 
appellant was made the officiating Managing Director in 
order to attend all urgent matters. 
o 
Subsequently, a public interest litigation was filed 
against NAFED before the High Court on the allegations 
of misappropriation of funds by its officials in non-
agricultural business. The Government of India, in its 
reply, stated that GBI enquiry will be conducted. The CBI 
E filed charge-sheet against the appellant and Respondent 
No.3 along with other accused for committing offence 
under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 411 ,420, 467, 
468 and 471 of IPC. At this stage, Respondent No.3 
preferred Writ Petition for discharge before the High Court 
F under Section 482 of CrPC read with Article 226/227 of 
the Constitution. By impugned order, the High Court 
allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal 
proceedings pending against respondent No.3 before the 
Metropolitan Magistrate. 
G 
The appellant contended before this Court that: (i) the 
High Court erred in quashing the complaint against 
Respondent No.3 without hearing the appellant, who was 
a co-accused in the case and over exercised its 
jurisdiction by holding a summary trial on facts; (ii) the 
H High Court committed error in coming to a finding against 
HOMI RAJVANSH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
477 
the appellant without the appellant being a party in the 
A 
writ petition filed by respondent No.3 and in agreeing with 
the submissions of Respondent No .. 3 without affording 
an opportunity of being heard to the appellant; and (iii) 
that the adverse findings against the appellant in the 
impugned judgment would affect the trial, and hence 
B 
prayed for quashing of the same. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. In the writ petition filed by Respondent No.3 
before the High Court for quashing the criminal 
C -
proceedings, the appellant was not shown or impleaded 
as one of the parties. On the other hand, the role of the 
appellant was specifically contended before the High 
Court at several places and, in categorical t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.