LexR. KALYANI versus JANAK C. MEHTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1249 R.'-:KALYANI V. JANAK C. MEHTA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 2008 ) OCTOBER 24, 2008 [5.B. SINHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal proceedings - Quashing of, by High Court - Governing prin- ciples - Explained - On facts, FIR lodged under ss.406, 420 C and s.468 r.w. s.34 IPC against respondent 1to3- Petition for quashing by respondent 1 and 2 - Allowed by High Court - Challenge to - Held: High court rightly quashed proceedings against respondent 1 and 2 as allegations contained in FIR did not disclose offence against them - However,. since re- 0 spondent 3 was not applicant before High Court, his case was not covered - Investigation against him would continue. Liability - Vicarious liability - Held: Can be fastened only by reason of a provision of statute - For the said purpose, a legal fiction has to be created - Thus, if a person, has to be E proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. Respondent No.1 and 2 were the President and Branch Coordinator of a Company. Both of them were stationed at the Head Quarter at Bombay. The Company F had branches including one at Chennai. Respondent no13 was the Branch Manager of the Company at Chennai. Appellant lodged a First Information Report against the respondents alleging commission of offence und~r ss.409, 420 and 468 r.w. s.34 IPC. G The principal allegations in FIR were that the third -. respondent without the knowledge and consent of the appellant with mala fide intention, operated the account 1249 H 1250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A maintained in the name of appellant. It was also alleged in FIR that the second respondent forwarded a letter dated 10.1.2002 to the National Stock Exchange which was forged and fabricated letter. Respondent no. 1 and 2 were sought to be proceeded on the premise that they were B vicariously liable for affairs of the Company. c Respondent no.1 and 2 filed petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report as also the investigation initiated pursuant thereto, which was allowed. Hence the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court ordinarily would not ex- ercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal pro- ceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report un- D less the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. Such a power should be exer- cised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not E go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the · accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. [Para 9] (1262-C, D, E) 1.2. Each case has to be considered on its own mer- its. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, F although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the pro- visions of ss.482 and 483 Cr.P.C. had been introduced by the Parlia~ent but would not hesitate· to exercise its ju- risdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount G duties of the Superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint. [Para 1 O] (1262-F, G, H) H State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) R. KALYANI v. JANAK C. MEHTA 1251 & ORS. ,.. Supp.1 SCC 335; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi & A Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259; Hamid v. Rashid alias Rasheed & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474; Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 705; State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saro} Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540; Kai/ash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 571; Or. B Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of UP. & Ors. (2008) 9 SCALE )- 166-reliedon. 2.1. A bare perusal of the First Information Report clearly goes to show that authorisedly or unauthorisedly, respondent No.3 was operating the appellant's account. C It was furthermore not in dispute that she and her family members were operating six accounts with the company. It also stood admitted that the respondent No.3 resigned from the post of Branch Manager on or about 25.10.2002. The records also show that Demat Fixed Accounts were D being operated by the brot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.