LexRAVINDRA KUMAR MADHANLAL GOENKA & ANR. versus M/S. RUGMINI RAM RAGHAV SPINNERS P. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 27 RAVINDRA KUMAR MADHANLAL GOENKA & ANR. A v. MIS. RUGMINI RAM RAGHAV SPINNERS P. LTD. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2009) APRIL 13, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Scope of B - Complaint uls. 120-B, 406, 420 and 384 IPC - Petition for quashing the proceedings - Dismissed by High Court - On C appeal, held: On facts, criminal proceeding not liable to be quashed - Defence of the accused can be entertained only at trial stage - It cannot be looked into in a petition uls. 482 - Investigation of the case should not be permitted to be pre- """ empted unless there are extreme cases -Present case is not D an extreme case - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-8, 406, 420 and 384. Appellant No. 1 was dealing in cotton as Commission Agent. Appellant No. 2 was his business partner. Respondent approached appellant No. 1 and ordered for E cotton bales. Over a period, dispute arose between them. Respondent asked the appellant to release the bales agreed upon and appellant told him that the bales would be released only on payment of balance amount. Respondent filed complaints before Magistrate against F appellant No. 1 u/ss. 406, 420 and 384 IPC and against appellant No. 2 u/ss. 120-B, 406, 420 and 384 IPC. Appellant's application u/s. 482 Cr.PC for quashing the criminal proceedings was dismissed. Hence, the present ~ appeal. · · G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the instant case, there il~ no denial of the 27 H 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. A fact that though 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, 100 bales of cotton are yet to be dispatched. The defence raised by the appellant can be urged and proved only during the course of trial. While entertaining a petition u/o. 482 CrPC, the materials furnished by tho a defence cannot be looked Into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It Is well settled position of law that when there are prlma facle materlals available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceEldings cannot be entertained. The Investigating c agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut. of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases. Considering the facts of the present case, it is not one of those extreme cases where 0 criminal prosecution can be quashed by the court at the very threshold. [Paras 14 and 15] [37-E-H; 38-A-B] Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 (3) SCC 736; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC E 736 and Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar 2005 (10) sec 336, distinguished. Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gil/ 1995 (6) SCC 194; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar 1985 (2) SCC 370, F referred to. Case Law Reference: 1976 (3) sec 736 Distinguished. Para 9 G 1992 Supp. (1) sec 335 Distinguished. Para 10 1995 (6) sec 194 Referred to. Para 10 1985 (2) sec 370 Referred to. Para 10 2006 (6) sec 736 Distinguished. Para 12 H • •• '? RAVINDRA KUMAR MADHANLAL GOENKA v. 29 RUGMINI RAM RAGHAV SPIN. P. LTD. 2006 (10) SCC 336 Distinguished. Para 13 A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Original Petition No. B 4556 of 2006. ~· H.L. Agarwal, Dr. R.N. Upadhya (for P.V. Yogeswaran) for the Appellants. M.N. Krishnamani, Mary Mitzy, Deepak Jain, G.S. C Chauhan and (for Shiv Prakash Pandey) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. MUKUNOAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. D 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Madras High Court In Criminal Original Petition No. 4556 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed under E Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') by the appellants for quashing criminal complaint filed against them by the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. 3. Facts in brief, as alleged by the appellants, are as F follows: Ravindera Kumar Madhanlal Goenka - Accused No. 1 ( 1st appellant herein) is the proprietor of Mis. Ravindera Kumar Madhanlal having its office at Shri Ganesh Complex, Kothadi G Baza
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.