RAMESH RAJAGOPAL versus DEVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 19-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 527 
RAMESH RAJAGOPAL 
v. 
D'EVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED 
(Criminal Appeal No.133 of2016) 
APRIL 19, 2016 
[S.A. BOBDE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. · 482 -Quashing of 
criminal proceedings~ Prosecution of appellant-accused uls. 409, 
468 and 471 !PC rlw. ss. 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, 
. 2000 rlw. s. 120-B !PC - Petition u/s. 482, for quashing the 
proceedings, dismissed by High Court - _On appeal, held: Jn the 
facts of the case, none of.the circumstances alleged, lead to an 
inference of commission- of an offence alleged either under !PC or 
under Information Technology Act _:_ The criminal proceedings seem 
to be due lo a private and personal grudge and thus is abuse of the 
process of the Court- High Court wrongly dismissed the pe_tition 
over-looking the circumstances of th~ case ""' In order tO meet the 
ends of justiCf!, it is necessary to quash the criminal proceedings 
against the appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409, 468 and 471 -
· Information .Technology Act, 2()00 _;, ss. 65 and 66. -
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. It is not possible to attribute any intention of 
cheating which is, a necessary,_ ingredient for the offence under 
Section 468 IPC.. The_ allegations that the appellant is guilty of 
an offence under the aforesaid section are inherently improbable 
and there is no sufficient ground of proceedings against the 
accused. None of the circumstances alleged can lead to an 
inference of commission of an offence under the IPC at any rate. 
The proceedings have been initiated against the appellant as a 
part of an ongoing dispute between the parties and seem to be 
due to a private and personal grudge. [Paras 9, 14 and 15] [531-
A-B; 532-D-F) 
2. As regards the commission of offences under the 
. Information Technology Act, 2000, the allegations are that the 
appellant had, with fraudulent and dishonest intention, on the 
website of 'Devi Consultancy Services' mentioned that the former 
527 
. 
B 
c . 
D 
E 
F - -
G 
H 
528 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
is a sister concern of 'Devi Polymers' which amounts to creating 
false electronic record. The appellant was a Dfrector of 'Devi 
Polymers' and nothing is brought on record to show that he did 
not have any authority to access the computer system or the 
computer network of the company. That apart, there is nothing 
on record to show the commission of offence under Section 65 of 
the l.T. Act, since the allegation is not that any computer source 
code has been concealed, destroyed or altered. The acts of the 
appellant did not have any dishonest intention while considering 
the allegations in respect of the other offences. In the 
circumstances, no case is made out under Sections 65 and 66 of 
the I.T. Act. !Para 211 1535-D-GI 
3. An accused must be relieved from the prosecution, if 
the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their 
entirety do not constitute any offence. The High Court seems to 
have over-looked the circumstances of the case and has merely 
dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code on the ground that it required evidence at a 
trial to come to any conclusion. The criminal proceedings initiated 
by the respondent, constitute an abuse of process of Court and it 
is necessary, to meet the ends of justice to quash the prosecution 
against the appellant. [Paras 20, 22) [535-C, G-H; 536-A] 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1990 
(3) Suppl. scR 259 :1992 Supp (1) sec 335; 
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao 
Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. 1988 (2) SCR 930 : 
(1988) 1 sec 692; Janata Dal V. HS. Choll'dhmy and 
Ors .. 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226 : (1992) 4 SCC 305; 
lnder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttarancha/ 
and Ors. 2007 (10) SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1; R. 
Ka/yani v. Janak C. Melita and Ors. 2008 (14) SCR 
1249 : (2009) 1 SCC 516; Umesh Kumar '" State of 
Andhra Pradesh and Am: 2013 (14) SCR 213 : (2013) 
10 sec 591- relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 
relied on 
Para 16 
RAMESH RAJAGOPAL v. DEVI POLYMERS PVT. LIMITED 
529 
1988 (2) SCR 930 
relied on 
Para 17 
1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226 
relied on 
Para 18 
2007 (10) SCR 847 
relied on 
Para 19 
2008 (14) SCR 1249 
relied on 
Para 19 
2013 (14) SCR 213 
relied on 
Para 20 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 133 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.