LexSIVAKUMAR versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1688 : 2025 INSC 558 Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2140-2141 of 2025) 23 April 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing appellant’s petition u/s.482 CrPC seeking quashing of chargesheet against him. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of proceedings – On default of borrower to repay the loan to the bank, issuance of auction notice for mortgaged immovable property – Respondent no.2, de-facto complainant, purchased the property in the public auction – Subsequently, complainant came to know that the property was already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Complainant filed a complaint and FIR was registered under various sections of Penal Code wherein Branch Manager of the bank and appellant-Manager of Head Office arrayed as the accused – Chargesheet filed and the magistrate took cognizance – Thereagainst, the appellant filed application u/s.482 for quashing of proceedings – High Court held that prima facie case made out against the appellant – Correctness: Held: Right from the initiation of the auction process to the issuance of sale certificate, no direct involvement of the appellant can be seen as he was not the authorized officer during the said period – Appellant had no role to play in the transaction leading to the FIR as he was not a signatory to the sale certificate – Since the appellant was neither the authorized officer at the relevant time nor responsible for the auction process or issuance of the sale certificate, the allegations against him are baseless and do not attract criminal liability – Continuation of the instant criminal * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1689 Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police & Anr. proceedings against the appellant would lead to abuse of process of law, cause miscarriage of justice and inordinately harass the appellant who has been implicated without due cause – Impugned order set aside. [Para 18] Case Law Cited K. Virupaksha v. State of Karnataka [2020] 2 SCR 1020 : (2020) 4 SCC 440; Mrs. Leelamma Mathew v. M/s Indian Overseas Banks & Ors. [2022] 18 SCR 696 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; SARFAESI Act, 2002; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Quashing of chargesheet; Suppression of acquisition of property; Cheating; Dishonest intention; False certificate; Forgery; Immunity to secured creditors and their officers; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Auction process; Sale certificate. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2140-2141 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLOP (MD) No. 21417 and 10979 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Rajendra Sahu, Ms. Hema Sahu, Rishabh Sahu, Nikhil Jaiswal. Advs. for the Respondents: V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal Tyagi, Danish Saifi. 1690 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellant against the common judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. (MD) 21417 of 2016 and Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10979 of 2016, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 to quash the chargesheet and consequential proceedings arising out of CC. No. 308 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli. 3. The case of the prosecution in the instant matter is that the first accused was working as a Branch Manager in HDFC Limited at Palayankottai Branch and the second accused, i.e. the appellant herein, was working as a Manager in the Head Office of HDFC Limited at Thiruvananthapuram when the alleged offence was committed. In 2004, one Mr. A. Kannan had borrowed loan from HDFC Limited by mortgaging his immovable property in Survey No. 145/1 (Plot No. 96) situated at Keela Natham Village, Palayankottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the superstructure built up therein. 4. Since the said borrower had defaulted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.