LexSATISH MEHRA versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 1
SATISH MEHRA
v.
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 22, 2012
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
A
B
s.482 - Complaint of cheating and forgery in renewal and c
encashment of Foreign <;urrency Non-eResident Fixed
Deposits -
Charges framed against Chief Manager and
Senior Manager of Bank and wife and father-in-law of
complainant - Quashing of - Held: Power uls 482, to interdict
a criminal proceeding would be available for exercise not only 0
at the threshold of the criminal proceeding but also at a
relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the
charge against the accused - Framing of a charge against a
person substantially affects his liberty - In the instant case,
no positive role having been attributed to the Bank officials E
in facilitating any action of the other accused persons,
proceedings against the said Bank officials are not
maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21.
s.482 -
Complaint by husband against his wife and
father-in-law for causing renewal and encashment of Foreign F
Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposits by cheating and
forgery - Accused stated to have used an old Investment
Renewal Form containing old signatures of the couple which
had been misplaced - Held: The signatures and endorsement
'
made by accused (father-in-law) on the said form had been G
found to be relatively fresh in comparison to the signatures
of the couple on the said form - It prima facie discloses
commission of offences ulss 467, 468, 471 and 120-B /PC -
Order of High Court quashing the said charges in respect of
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 11 S.C.R.
A
the said FD against the accused concerned is, clearly
unsustainable, and is, therefore, set aside - Penal Code,
1860 - ss. 467, 468, 471 and 120-8.
B
Penal Code, 1860:
s.466 - 'Forgery' - Explained.
There was matrimonial discord between the
appellant-complainant and his wife ('AM'). On 6.1.1994,
the appellant filed a complaint with the police on the basis
c of which an FIR was registered. The case of the appellant
was that he alongwith his wife had opened five Foreign
Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposits (FCNRFD); that
his father-in-law, namely, 'SKK' forged his signatures on
FD receipts and got them renewed in the sole name of
0
'AM' and the latter unauthorisedly encashed the same.
The trial court framed charges against the Chief Manager
and Senior Manager of the Branch of Canara Bank, for
offences punishable ulss. 120-B and 420 IPC in respect
of FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank; and against
E the father-in-law (SKK) and the wife ('AM') of the
complainant for offences punishable u/ss. 120-B, 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC in respect of all five FDs. All the accused
approached the High Court for quashing of the charges.
The High Court declined any relief to both the Bank
Officials, but quashed the charges framed against 'SKK'
F for offences punisha~le u/ss.120B and 420 IPC in respect
of FD Nos. 22191 and 9/92 as well as the charges framed
against him for offences punishable u/ss.467, 468 and
471 IPC read with s.120B IPC. The High Court further
_interfered with the charges framed against accused 'AM'
G for offences punishable u/ss. 467, 468 and 471 read with
120-B IPC. The rest of the charges against the said two
accused were maintained. Aggrieved, the two Bank
Officials filed appeals against the order of High Court
declining relief to them and the complainant filed the
H other appeal against part relief granted to accused 'SKK'.
SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &
3
ANR.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
A
HELD: 1.1. Though a criminal complaint lodged
before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the
police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be
8
brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the
procedure prescribed, power has been conferred u/s.482
of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event
the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding
amounts to an abuse of the process of court. Such power
would be available for exercise not only at the threshold C
of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced
stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against
the accused. In fact, the power to quash a proceeding
after framing of charge would appear to Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.